IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3504 of 2010(K) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- TCI XPS, KOYYAMARAKKAD, KANJIKKODE, PALAKKAD BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH IN CHARGE, AWDESHKUMAR PANDEY. BY ADV. MR.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, WALAYAR. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, WALAYAR. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, WALAYAR. 4. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2010, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO. 3564 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 3504 & 3564 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The issue involved in both the cases, though not connected with each other is rather similar and the petitioner being the same, besides the nature of contentions raised almost being similar, both these matters are considered and dealt with together. 2. The goods transported by the petitioner in the vehicles concerned were intercepted and detained at the Check Post at Walayar leading to issuance of notice under section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The main incriminating circumstance pointed out is that even though the goods were shown as being transported to a destination in Tamil Nadu (Pollachi in W.P.(C) No. No.3504 of 2010 and Ariyalur in Tamil Nadu in W.P.(C) No. 3564 of 2010), they were intercepted while proceeding along a different route. The case moulded by the petitioner in both W.P.(C) No. 3504/2010 & con. case. 2 the cases is that the goods happened to be loaded in the vehicles proceeding to Ernakulam, because of a 'mistake' on the part of the concerned Clerk in the booking office and not because of any wilful default or other culpable circumstance on the part of the petitioner. Even though the position was explained before the concerned respondent, the goods are still detained; aggrieved of which, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing these writ petitions. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who vehemently opposed the reliefs sought for, stating that the admitted fact does not require to be proved and that very course and conduct of the petitioner in both the cases offering similar excuse shows something else. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, because of the delay in finalizing the adjudication proceedings, irreparable injury and loss are being caused to the petitioner, since the goods are still at the hands of the respondents. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, the 2nd W.P.(C) No. 3504/2010 & con. case. 3 respondent is directed to finalize the adjudication proceedings, pursuant to Ext.P5 in both the cases in accordance with law, of course after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the releasing of the goods shall be subject to the outcome in the adjudication proceedings as above. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE mn.