IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23892 of 2010(J)
1. DR.VIVISH THOMAS, MANAGING DIRECTOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR,
... Respondent
2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED
4. VIJAYAN KUMAR,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.K.SREEJITH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :30/07/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 23892 OF 2010
--------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
One ‘HIAB Crane’ transported by the petitioner was
intercepted on the way by the departmental authorities doubting
evasion of tax and demanding security deposit, issuing notice under
Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act, which was subjected to challenge by
filing WP(C) No.22370/2010 leading to Ext.P9 judgment. As per
Ext.P9, this Court directed the concerned authority to finalise the
adjudication proceedings within a specified time, directing the
petitioner to produce a copy of the said judgment before the first
respondent to take further steps. Petitioner has now come before
this Court stating that the jurisdiction is actually vested with the
second respondent and that the proceedings are being sought to be
finalised by the fourth respondent, who according to the petitioner, is
actually in enemical terms with the petitioner thus seeking to direct
the second respondent to deal with the matter.
2. This Court finds it difficult to accept the proposition
made by the petitioner. What has been directed in Ext.P9 is to
consider and finalise the adjudication proceedings by the concerned
authority. If the adjudication to be finalised by the concerned
WPC No.23892/2010
2
respondent goes against the petitioner, it may be for him to challenge
it further and the apprehension expressed by the petitioner does not
deserve to be considered for the time being.
Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
(JUDGE)
vps
WPC No.23892/2010
3
WPC No.23892/2010
4