IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 33843 of 2009(A) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- ANIL THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, AGED 40 YEARS, AYIKKARATH-HOUSE, KARUKUTTY.P.O & VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (I B), COMMERCIAL TAXES, IDUKKI, THODUPUZHA. 2. A.P. SHIJU, S/O.POULOSE, ARAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NADUVATTAM, NEELESWARAM-VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. -------------------------------------------- WP(C).No. 33843 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of November, 2009. JUDGMENT Challenge is against Ext.P4 proceedings by which penalty was imposed on the petitioner under section 70(b) read with section 67(1) of the KVAT Act, based on the allegation that a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-07/AX-837 which is a 'Scorpio Jeep' had created obstruction to the Intelligence Squad who conducted vehicle checking at Muttom, on 4.7.2009, and thereby prevented the Intelligence Squad from intercepting a lorry which was suspected to have transported live chicken without payment of tax. The penalty was imposed on the premise that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle. According to the petitioner, when Ext.P2 notice intimating the proposal for imposing penalty was received, he had submitted Ext.P3 objection stating that the vehicle in question was already sold by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent herein as early as on 29.12.2008 and that the 2nd respondent alone is in custody of the vehicle on the alleged date WPC.33843/2009 2 of incident. Petitioner had produced Ext.P1 copy of sale agreement in support of his contention. 2. But on going through contents of Ext.P4 proceedings, it is noticed that no such objection was seen filed by the petitioner and the proceedings was finalised, since the petitioner had not responded to Exts.P2 notice. It is noticed that the petitioner has got an effective statutory remedy against Ext.P4 by way of appeal. But contention of the petitioner is that he has no objection in the vehicle being proceeded against, for the purpose of realising the amount imposed under Ext.P4. But it is pointed out that on adopting such a course, the 2nd respondent, who is in possession of the vehicle, may raise objection that the penalty was imposed without notice to him and without giving him an opportunity to object such imposition of penalty. 3. Having considered facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the matter need consideration afresh by the first respondent, after issuing notice to the 2nd respondent, as well as the petitioner. Therefore Ext.P4 is hereby quashed. The first respondent is directed to finalise the proceedings taking note of contention of the petitioner regarding sale of the vehicle, and if WPC.33843/2009 3 necessary after issuing notice to the 2nd respondent. A fresh decision in this regard may be taken at the earliest at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE Pmn/