IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2011 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13514 of 2011(L) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- M/S.MIRC ELECTRONICS LTD., M.S.&S CHAMBERS, NO.XII/992, THRIKKAKARA, ERNAKULAM-682030. BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM - 016. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.13514 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against proceedings initiated under section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act). By virtue of Ext.P3 notice, goods under transport was detained demanding payment of security deposit. Contention of the petitioner is that, the detention is unsustainable and the reasons for detention mentioned in Ext.P3 are not sustainable. 2. By virtue of an interim order issued on 24.5.2011, this Court directed the authorised officer to finalise the enquiry under Section 47(5) and (6), after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to pass final orders as contemplated under Section 47(6). It is submitted that, in compliance of the direction issued as above, the enquiry was finalised and the petitioner was imposed with penalty equivalent to the amount of security deposit demanded. 2 W.P.(C).No.13514 of 2011 3. It is noticed that the petitioner has got an effective remedy against the order imposing penalty by way of statutory appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is taking steps to file appeal before the appropriate authority. But the petitioner is seeking direction for release of the goods pending disposal of the appeal on the basis of an undertaking to provide adequate security equivalent to the amount of penalty. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of relegating the petitioner to the appellate authority and by directing release of the goods on condition of the petitioner furnishing bank guarantee. 5. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to challenge the order passed under Section 47(6) before the appellate authority concerned. If the petitioner files any appeal before the appellate authority having jurisdiction in the matter, within the time limit prescribed, the same shall be considered and 3 W.P.(C).No.13514 of 2011 disposed of after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of 2 months from the date of filing of such appeal. 6. Pending disposal of such appeal, the respondents are directed to release the goods detained by virtue of Ext.P3 notice, if the petitioner furnishes bank guarantee for the amount of penalty imposed. Needless to say that, the respondent will be entitled to appropriate the Bank Guarantee depending on the outcome of the appeal, provided the petitioner files the appeal within the statutory time limit prescribed. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/