IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 16557 of 2008 Between: M/s.Himalaya Cold Storage,Punganur ,Chittoor District Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Managing partner Sri Mohideen Najeeb Damodi ..... PETITIONER AND The Commercial Tax officer, Madanapalle circle NRK Street, CTM Road,Madanapalle, Chittoor District, AP .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in levying tax on the petitioner vide his Assessment order dated 25.3.2008 in his proceedings 'Assessment of Value Added Tax ' in Form VAT 305 in TIN/Rc.No.A2/441/2006 on the transaction of storage of goods of ryots/traders in its cold Storage Unit by collecting hire charges for the Assessment year 2005-06 and 2006-07 under the AP Valued Added Tax Act 2005 as illegal, and without jurisdiction and without giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner in violation of the principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the RespondentS.: SRI K. RAJI REDDY, SPL.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 16992 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The present writ petition is filed seeking to declare the seizure of the vehicle of the petitioner bearing No.AP 5T 1596 AND AP 5T 1597 under vehicle check report No.2343628 dated 24.7.2008 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct the respondents to release the vehicle of the petitioner forthwith. The vehicle in question was seized by the 2nd respondent on 24.7.2008 for certain irregularities, alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that the enquiry will take its own time and in the mean time, the vehicle, which has been kept in open place, would be subjected to natural decay due to sun and rain and therefore, the vehicle in question, which is being used for agricultural operations, may be directed to be released. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Transport. The learned G.P. has submitted that the amount payable by the petitioner is Rs.27,000/-. It is further submitted that the vehicle in question, which is in the name of the mother of the petitioner, has not been transferred in the name of the petitioner whereas it is the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the vehicle has already been transferred in the name of the petitioner. Since no purpose would be served by keeping the vehicle in the custody of the respondents and the vehicle would be subjected to natural decay due to sun and rain, We feel it a fit case wherein the vehicle in question can be directed to be released but subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to release the vehicle in question forthwith to the interim custody of the petitioner, subject to the condition of the petitioner paying Rs.15,000/- and also on production of original documents besides furnishing an undertaking to the effect that he would not transfer the vehicle pending enquiry and that he would produce the vehicle as and when the same is required by the respondent-authorities in the course of enquiry and investigation. It is also made clear that this order will not preclude the authorities from proceeding with the regular enquiry. In view of the controversy as to the transfer of the vehicle as submitted by the respective counsel, We feel it just and proper to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to file an appropriate application seeking transfer of the vehicle in question in his name, if not already filed. It is needless to observe that on filing such an application, the same shall be disposed of, in accordance with law. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _____________________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan Date: 6th August, 2008 Note: CC in two days. (BO) Nn/Gurc. HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No:16992 OF 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 06.8.2008