IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16068 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- P. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O. PONNU SAMY, PROPRIETOR, KRISHNAN AND COMPANY, NO.15, CHELIMADA, K.K. ROAD, KUMILY-685909, KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE INTELLEGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.1, IDUKKI AT KATTAPPANA. 2. THE INTELLEGENCE INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAXES, SQUAD II, KOTTAYAM AT PALA. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, PERUMANOOR, ERNAKULAM. 4. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, IDUKKI, KATTAPPANA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 16068 OF 2008 K -------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd June, 2008 JUDGMENT Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is a merchant. He purchased 200 bags of moong and transported the same under Ext.P1 delivery note. The goods carrier broke down at Erachal Para in Kuttikkanam on 6.11.2006 and it was transshipped to another goods carrier. The lorry that broke down was lifted by using crane and for that Ext.P2 bill is produced. Then the petitioner, as soon as the goods vide Ext.P1 delivery note reached Kumily, redirected the same by sale in favour of Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Kottayam under Ext.P3 invoice. It is the further case of the petitioner that the lorry broke down at Erachal Para when the goods vide Ext.P3 invoice was being transported and the second respondent intercepted the lorry when it reached Kanjirappally on 9.11.2006 and issued Ext.P4 notice under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, demanding a sum of WPC. 16068/08 K 2 Rs.30,180/=. Petitioner deposited the said amount towards security for releasing the lorry. The goods came to be delivered to the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. on 10.11.2006. Thereafter, by Ext.P7 order, the first respondent converted the said amount into penalty. Petitioner preferred Ext.P8 Appeal before the third respondent. Now, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking to challenge Exts.P4 and P7. He also seeks a writ of prohibition or injunction restraining the fourth respondent from resorting to proceedings for assessment of escaped turnover in pursuance of Ext.P7 order. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. I find that the petitioner has already invoked the alternate remedy available to him by filing Ext.P8 Appeal. In such circumstances, it is for the petitioner to pursue the alternate remedy. Counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner will file an application for stay before the third respondent. In such circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: WPC. 16068/08 K 3 If the petitioner prefers an application for stay before the third respondent, appropriate orders in accordance with law will be passed thereon by the third respondent, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, within three weeks from the date of filing of the application. Petitioner will produce a copy of this Judgment along with the application for stay. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk.