IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 34499 of 2010(J) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- P.A.KHALEEL, PROPRIETOR, PATTORAKKAL EXPORTS & IMPORTS, 8/159,SILK STREET, KOZHIKODE BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TAXATION AND FINANCE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 2. THE SALES TAX INSPECTOR, SALES TAX CHECK POST, KARUKUTTY-683576 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.34499 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Petitioner is aggrieved by non-finalisation of proceedings initiated under Section 69 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act). A consignment of “Children's Cradle” intended for export to Bahrain, transported from Kozhikode to Cochin was detained at the Commercial Tax Check Post, Karukutty, on 26.6.2007, on issuing Ext.P2 notice. When the petitioner had approached this court seeking release of the goods, Ext.P3 judgment was issued directing the petitioner to furnish Bank Guarantee. Ext.P4 is the Bank Guarantee furnished by the petitioner in compliance with the direction contained therein. It is evident from Ext.P5 that the transport in question was released accepting the Bank Guarantee. It is the complaint of the petitioner that the respondents have not conducted any further enquiry and finalised the proceedings. It is contended that the goods under transport was for export and there was no tax liability at all. Therefore the petitioner claims that he is entitled for release of the Bank Guarantee. 2. From the facts and circumstances it is evident that the proceedings initiated pursuant to Ext.P2 notice has not been finalised by the respondents so far. Going by the provisions W.P.(C).34499/10-J -2- contained in the statute an adjudication has to be done in the matter and a proceedings shall be issued with respect to the liability for the petitioner for payment of penalty. Such proceedings shall be finalised with proper opportunity afforded to the petitioner. 3. Under such circumstances I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the respondents or any competent authority thereof to finalise the proceedings at the earliest possible. 4. Hence the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent or any other competent authority empowered under Section 69 to finalise the proceedings after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that appropriation of Bank Guarantee shall be ordered subject to final outcome of the proceedings to be issued in this regard. 5. If the petitioner produces a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent, the said authority will take necessary action for proper compliance of the judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb