IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2009 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1931 WA.No. 1158 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.14888/2009 Dated 29/05/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ----------------- M/S. KAVITHA AGENCIES, ROOM NO.6, IST FLOOR, T.M.C COMPLEX, CHANDRANAGAR, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.T.K.N. SHAJAHAN. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.ANIL D. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.V, COMMERCIAL TOWER, MALAPPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------- W.A.No.1158 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 8th June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.14888 of 2009. The Intelligence Squad intercepted the goods of the appellant while in transport and issued Ext.P2 notice alleging evasion of tax and demanding an amount of Rs.57,485/=, being double the amount of tax sought to be evaded. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred the writ petition. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, observed that the rate of tax applicable has since been finally decided in O.T.A.No.14/2008, whereby the actual rate of tax applicable in that case was held as 12.5% and not 4%. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge directed release of goods on condition of remittance of 50% of amount shown in Ext.P2 by way of cash or Demand Draft and for the balance sum to execute a self bond. It was also directed W.A.No.1158 of 2009 2 that the goods shall be released to be petitioner immediately on compliance of the abovesaid order. 2. The only grievance raised by the appellant at this stage of the proceeding is that by the judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge has given a finality to the dispute regarding the rate of tax applicable. Admittedly the appellant is not a party to O.T.A.No.14/2008 and it is not known whether the goods are similar. Being a question of fact, that has to be finally adjudicated by the authorities concerned. In such circumstances, the observation made in paragraph 2 of the judgment is set aside and the matter as to whether the rate of tax applicable is at 12.5% or 4% in the present case will be decided by the authorities concerned in due course. 3. However, we are not called upon to decide the issue in this writ appeal and we leave open the issues to be decided by the authorities concerned. For that limited purpose, W.A.No.1158 of 2009 3 the writ appeal is partly allowed. The other conditions imposed by the learned Single Judge for releasing the goods will continue. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN , JUDGE. nj.