JUDGMENT : P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. The petitioner is a partnership firm manufacturing Plywood and Hard board panels and Block Boards at a place in Kannur District, who is a registered dealer both under the KVAT Act and CST Act, on the rolls of the first respondent. 2. In the course of business activities of the petitioner, the petitioner wanted to purchase home machinery, particularly, a TKL Reactor with agitator system and accessories (Steel Tank to mix resins to constitute a kind of industrial glue) from the consignor at Bangalore. According to the petitioner, the item 'Machinery' is very much included in the certificates of registration, copies of which have been produced before this Court as Exts.P5 & P6 (KVAT & CST). Pursuant to the order placed by the petitioner, the machinery was supplied by the consignor, against Ext.P2 invoice dated 30.07.2012 realising CST @ 2% (concessional rate) and the machinery was being transported in the vehicle bearing No.KA-02C-8815, on the strength of the invoice as aforesaid. In the course of transit as above, the goods were intercepted by the first respondent on 31.07.2012, issuing Ext.P4 notice under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act, doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit to the extent of Rs.2,31,066/- (Rupees Two lakhs thirty one thousand and sixty six only), which forms the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, there is absolutely no basis whatsoever for having detained the goods or as to the observation that the petitioner is not authorised to purchase the above machinery from outside the State, availing the benefit of concessional rate of tax. By virtue of inclusion of the machinery in Ext.P6 certificate of registration, the petitioner is entitled to have the benefit of Section 8(1) of the CST Act. The learned counsel also submits that the requirement of the petitioner is only for 'own use', as discernible from Ext.P1 certificate of ownership in Form 16 and not for any sale. 4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that, whether the petitioner's contention is correct or not, is a matter which requires to be brought to light in the adjudication proceedings. 4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that, whether the petitioner's contention is correct or not, is a matter which requires to be brought to light in the adjudication proceedings. This Court finds, that the observation in Ext.P4 notice that the petitioner is not authorised to purchase a machinery prima facie does not appear to be correct, in view of the inclusion of the term 'Machinery' in Ext.P6, though the particular type of machine is not separately specified in the certificate of registration. It is of course for the concerned respondent to pursue the adjudication proceedings in accordance with law, to ascertain the actual state of affairs. But for that matter, the goods need not be detained any further and it shall be released to the petitioner forthwith, on executing a 'simple bond' without sureties for the security amount demanded in Ext.P4. This will be without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the respondents to pursue the adjudication proceedings, which shall be finalised, in accordance with law, at the earliest.