IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 32208 of 2010(A) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- M/S. SIEMENS LIMITED PLOT NO.2,SECTOR 2,KHARGHAR NODE, NAVI MUMBAI-410 210,REP.BY DIPU.K.BOSE, GROUP LEADER-MARKETING. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER SQUAD NO.IV,ERNAKULAM, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(INT.)COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM, AT EDAPPALLY TOLL. 2. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.IV,COMMERCIAL TAXES,KASARAGOD. R1 & R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.SHAMSUDDIN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.32208 of 2010-A ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed with a grievance that the petitioner was not permitted to substitute the Bank Guarantee already furnished. The matter arises pursuant to detention of a transport and initiation of proceedings under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act). The petitioner had approached this Court challenging the detention and in Ext.P1 judgment, the respondents were directed to release the goods along with the vehicle on the petitioner furnishing a Bank Guarantee for the tax amount of 4% calculated on the value of `4,30,00,000/- and also on furnishing security bond for the balance amount. But the petitioner had produced Bank Guarantee for `37,74,400/- calculated at the rate of 8% on the value as stated above. Hence the petitioner had approached the 1st respondent for substituting the Bank Guarantee in compliance of the directions contained in Ext.P1 judgment. W.P(C) No.32208 of 2010-A 2 2. During pendency of the writ petition it was brought to my notice that, enquiry contemplated under Section 47(5) and (6) was completed and penalty was imposed on the petitioner to the tune of Rs.34,74,400/-. Under such circumstances, petitioner seeks direction from this Court to restrain the respondents from realising the Bank Guarantee already furnished, on the premise that the petitioner will file statutory appeal against the order issued under Section 47(6). 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that since the amount of penalty imposed is secured through Bank Guarantee already furnished, it is only just and proper to direct the appellate authority for a disposal of the appeal, if any filed by the petitioner on an early basis. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to file statutory appeal against the order issued imposing penalty under Section 47(6), within a period of two weeks from today. If any such appeal is filed, W.P(C) No.32208 of 2010-A 3 the appellate authority concerned shall dispose of the same after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such appeal. 5. Realisation of the amount of penalty shall be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal, if it is filed within the time stipulated above, provided the petitioner keep alive the Bank Guarantee already furnished, till the disposal of appeal. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab