IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 6640 of 2010(D)
1. SRI.P.NARAYANAN MENON(P.N.MENON),
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER
3. THE STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :02/03/2010
O R D E R
P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J.
------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.6640 of 2010
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved by the detention of the
goods transported by the petitioner by issuing Exts.P2 and P3
notices under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act,
whereby the materials have been detained demanding security in
respect of the same, doubting evasion of tax.
2. The course and procedure pursued by the
respondents are subjected to serious attack by the learned
counsel for the petitioner stating that the authority concerned
has not given effect to the Circular No.20/2005 dated 8.8.2005,
whereby the duty cast upon the first respondent to
forward all the concerned records to the second respondent
immediately on detention, has not been pursued by the said
respondent; which in turn has caused irreparable loss and
W.P.(C) No.6640 of 2010
– 2 –
hardship to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits that the goods have been purchased by the
petitioner for own use in connection with construction of a
house having a plinth area of 2241.52 M2 and that the position in
this regard has been duly certified by the concerned Tahsildar as
revealed by Ext.P7.
3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for
the respondents submits that Exts.P2 and P3 proceedings for
detention were on 8.2.2010 whereas Ext.P7 certificate has been
procured by he petitioner only subsequently, that is on
23.2.2010. Similarly, it is brought to the notice of this Court
that Ext.P8 certificate of ownership is not dated at all. The
learned Government Pleader also submits that the matter can be
caused to be adjudicated by the concerned authority within a
period of one week.
4. Taking note of the contentions raised by either
W.P.(C) No.6640 of 2010
– 3 –
side, the concerned respondent is directed to pursue the
adjudication exercise which shall be finalized in accordance
with law and after hearing the petitioner within a period of one
week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The
petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the first
respondent on which event the proceedings shall be finalized by
him and if the same is to be finalized by the second respondent
all necessary records along with his statement shall be
forwarded by the first respondent to the second respondent
within three days from the date of production of a copy of this
judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
P.R.Ramachandra Menon,
Judge
vns