IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 13TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 22ND BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27409 of 2010(A) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ EXCEL MARKETING, OPPOSITE P.S.M.O. COLLEGE, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM-676 306, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER JOMY JACOB, AGED 33, SON ANTONY JACOB. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.K.N.RAJANI SMT.ANILA PETER SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAXES CHECK POST, WALAYAR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/09/2010, ALONG WITH WPC. 27415 OF 2010 AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------------ WP(C) NOs. 27409 OF 2010, 27415 OF 2010, 27331 OF 2010 AND 27434 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT A common interim order was passed by this Court in all these cases on 03.09.2010, directing the enquiry officer concerned to complete the enquiry as contemplated under Section 47 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, within a time limit stipulated therein. The matter pertains to interception and detention of goods carried in different vehicles by the respective petitioners. According to the petitioners, the goods under transport were 'Mirrors', whereas the detaining authority suspected that the goods under transport are 'Float Glass'. Since physical verification of the goods was necessary for determining the issue, the enquiry was directed to be completed. 2. In compliance with the interim order, enquiry was completed and orders were issued repelling contentions of the petitioner that the goods under transport was 'Mirrors'. It is found that the goods under transport was “SSG Migralite Evolution” which is to be treated as glass, liable for remittance of Advance Tax. Eventhough the learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions assailing correctness of the orders issued by the enquiry officer imposing penalty, I am not inclined to entertain any such challenge because the petitioners have got effective 2 WP(C) No. 27409/2010 & Conn. Cases remedy by way of appeal against such orders as provided under the statute. 3. Having confronted with the said situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to approach the appellate authority. However direction was sought for, for releasing of the goods along with vehicles on imposing appropriate conditions, pending filing and disposal of appeals. 4. Considering circumstances attendant in this case, I am of the opinion that these Writ Petitions can be disposed of directing the petitioners to approach the appellate authority challenging orders issued under Section 47 (6) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, in each of these cases. 5. The respondent is directed to release the goods along with vehicles detained on condition of the petitioners remitting 50% of the penalty amount imposed in each of the cases, and also on furnishing Security Bond as provided under the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules, without sureties for the balance amount. 6. It is made clear that appeals if any filed against the orders issued under Section 47(6) shall be considered and disposed of by the appellate authority concerned, at the earliest, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at any rate within a period of two months from 3 WP(C) No. 27409/2010 & Conn. Cases the date of receipt of such appeals. 7. Realisation of balance amounts covered under the respective orders shall be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal, if the petitioner complies with the condition as stated above. All the Writ Petitions are disposed of with the above observations. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc