IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2008 / 13TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19406 of 2008(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- ARUN, S/O JOHN ALIAS YOHANNAN, VADAKKEDATHU HOUSE, CUMBUMMETTU, KARUNAPURAM VILLAGE,IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.THANU PILLAI RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER,SQUAD I, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KATTAPPANA AT IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEDUMKANDOM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, (INTELLIGENCE) COMMMERCIAL TAXES, IDUKKI DISTRICT AT NEDUMKANDAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No.19406 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this court seeking direction to quash Exts. P1 to P4 reports, mahazar and notice and he seeks a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to release to the petitioner 84 bags of dried pepper seized by them on 13.6.2008. Briefly put the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is the purchasing agent of Sri.Manu Mathew. Sri.Manu Mathew started business recently. It is stated that on 13.6.2008 at 5.45 p.m the second respondent seized 84 bags of dried pepper belonging to Sri.Manu Mathew loaded in a lorry and transported it to Cumbummettu Check Post, where he brought the first respondent and stored it at the Check Post. Petitioner was present at the time of seizure and at Cumbummettu Check Post. The respondents have not prepared any shop inspection report or mahazar and they have not issued any receipt for the goods or notice to the petitioner. No records were also shown to the petitioner. Copy was not given to the petitioner. Petitioner was not asked to sign any papers. According to the petitioner, petitioner was the person in charge of the goods. Proviso to Section 49(3) of the Kerala Value Added Tax mandates that before taking action to seize and detain the goods and the vehicle, the WPC. 19406/2008. 2 officer shall give the person in charge of the goods and the owner, and to the owner of the vehicle or the person in charge of the vehicle a notice in writing and an opportunity of being heard. It is further pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is willing to pay the amount mentioned in the proviso and the goods may be released to him, which is a right conferred under the proviso to Section 49(3) of the Act. 2. A counter affidavit is filed stating that actually the goods belong to one Mr.M. Kareem and the petitioner at the time of seizure also informed the authority that it belonged to Mr.Kareem and he is an employee of Mr.Kareem. 3. Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit. Proviso to Section 49 (3) speaks about a person in charge of a vehicle getting goods and the vehicle released. Without expressing any view on the merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to consider and take a decision on the question of releasing the goods to the petitioner in accordance with law. A decision will be taken within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb