IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2011 / 29TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 338 of 2011(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K. SENTHILKUMAR, S/O.R. KANNAN, NO.38, MAIN ROAD, ODAYAKULAM, POLLACHI. BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON, SMT.MEERA V.MENON. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.I, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 001. 2. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.I, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 001. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.338 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Petitioner is the owner of a lorry bearing Regn.No.TN-43/B-453. The vehicle was intercepted by the 2nd respondent on 10.12.2010 while transporting live chicken. Proceedings was initiated under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) and security deposit was demanded for release of the goods. Simultaneously proceedings under Section 69(1) of the KVAT Act was also initiated against the vehicle, on issuing Ext.P4 notice calling for objection against the proposal for imposing penalty to the tune of Rs.65,650/-. It is also noticed that, Ext.P5 notice was issued against the driver, proposing to impose penalty to the tune of Rs.10,000/- on the basis of an allegation of non compliance of the duties of a driver to accept notice. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of proceedings initiated as evidenced from Ext.P4 and P5, the matter is not finalised and the vehicle is being kept indefinitely. Going by the provisions contained in Section 69 W.P.(C).338/11 -2- of the Act it is evident that on the basis of Ext.P4 and P5 the competent authority has to conduct an enquiry and to finalise proceedings. Hence I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the competent authority to complete the proceedings within a stipulated time. However, pending finalisation of such proceedings the vehicle in question need not be kept in custody ,provided the petitioner furnishes adequate security for release of the same. 3. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to finalise the proceedings initiated on the basis of Ext.P4 and P5, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, and also to the driver of the vehicle, at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 4. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to release the vehicle bearing No. TN-43/B-453 to the petitioner subject to condition of the petitioner furnishing Bank Guarantee for the amounts covered under Ext.P4 and P5, and also on producing proof regarding ownership of the vehicle. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb