IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2010 / 4TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 22726 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.K.SULAIMAN, PROPRIETOR, KPH WOODEN FURNITURE & TIMBERS, MUNDAKAYAM P.O., PIN-686 513, PARATHANAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE INSPECOR, SQUAD NO.V, OFFICE OF INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INT.), COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, KOTTAYAM P.O., PIN-686 001. 2. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER(INT.), COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, KOTTAYAM P.O., PIN-686 001. BY SR..GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.22726 of 2010-M ---------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the non-finalisation of the proceedings, under Section 47(5) of the KVAT Act, which is allegedly causing much loss and hardship to the petitioner. The goods transported by the petitioner in the vehicle No.KL34-1928 were intercepted, leading to issuance of notice under Section 47(2) of the Act, doubting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit, which in turn was satisfied by the petitioner to the extent as directed by this Court vide Ext.P2 judgment in W.P(C) No.14503 of 2010, so as to have the goods cleared. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the adjudication proceedings are still to be finalsied, which made by the petitioner to approach this Court for directing the second respondent to finalise the same and to communicate the order without any further delay. 2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that, the proceedings have already been finalized; the order has been passed on 15.7.2010 and the same W.P(C) No.22726 of 2010-M 2 has now been communicated to the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, no communication whatsoever has been received by the petitioner in this regard. 4. In the above circumstances, the respondents are directed to ensure that the order stated as passed pursuant to Ext.P2 is communicated to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the same, in accordance with law, if he is aggrieved of the said order in any manner. The Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab W.P(C) No.22726 of 2010-M 3