IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20312 of 2010(L)
1. S.BALAKRISHNAN, NO.115-B,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. INTELLIGENCE INSPCTOR, INTELLIGENCE
... Respondent
2. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, INTELLIGENCE
3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
4. GOVERNMENT OF KERAA, REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.C.K.SREEJITH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :06/07/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
--------------------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 20312 OF 2010
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of July, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:
a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate
writ, direction or order quashing the notice Ext.P10, and release
the goods detained as per the said notice to this petitioner after
collecting the appropriate security deposit under Section 47(2) of
the KVAT Act.
b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ direction or order directing the 1st respondent to drop all
further proceedings pertaining to the impugned notice and
release the materials detained to this petitioner after collecting
the security deposit as envisaged in Section 47(2) of the KVAT
Act.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the
proceedings being pursued by the respondents are without any regard to
the actual facts and circumstances; under which the goods happened to
be transported into the State. The petitioner is a resident at Coimbatore in
Tamilnadu; where he is doing some business and is not a registered
dealer under KVAT Act/Rules. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that, the petitioner was transporting some miniature welding sets
and water pumps in the border place near Coimbatore and the materials
were loaded in the concerned truck to be given to the prospective
purchasers near Chavadi and elsewhere. Some other materials belonging
to others were also loaded in the very same vehicle to be taken to Kollam
2
WP(C) No. 20312/2010
and Thiruvananthapuram and the vehicle proceeded to the said destination
without unloading the goods of the petitioner; by mistake. It was while so,
the vehicle and the goods were intercepted by the 1st respondent on the
way, leading to issuance of impugned notices and proceedings.
3. The learned Government Pleader for the respondents submits
that, the materials were being transported absolutely without any
documents and on issuance of Ext.P7 notice, the RC owner of the vehicle
appeared and conceded the position to get release of the vehicle effecting
the payment to the requisite extent. Further steps were pursued by issuing
Ext.P10 notice, for causing the goods to be sold in public auction; when the
petitioner submitted Ext.P11 ‘e-mail’ seeking for further time to file proper
reply. Thereafter Ext.P15 explanation was submitted by the petitioner,
based on which; Ext.P16 notice was issued, giving an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner and asking him to appear in person with the
relevant documents on 24.06.2010. The learned Government Pleader
submits that, in spite of the service of notice as above, the petitioner did not
turn up, but sent another ‘e-mail’ as borne by Ext.P17, stating that the
petitioner did not have any documents to substantiate the position and that
the contention of the petitioner has already been highlighted in Ext.P15
explanation; which is sought to be finalized.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the
3
WP(C) No. 20312/2010
petitioner, however, will appear before the 1st respondent for the personal
hearing on 14.07.2010 (as suggested by both the sides) at 11 O’ clock.
The proceedings shall be finalized after hearing the petitioner or his
representative and the proceedings shall be taken to a logical conclusion,
by passing final orders as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one
month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
dnc