IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2011 / 4TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 226 of 2011(C) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.CHANDA FASHION, NEW DELHI REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL OFFICER MOHAN KUMAR, S/O.RAVINDRAN PILLAI RESIDING AT NARAYANA NIVAS, KOTTAONVIKKU, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.II E, OFFICE OF THE COMMERCIAL TAXES, KALPETTA-673121. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, MUTHANGA, WAYANAD DISTRICT-673592. 3. M/S.SIMLA, READYMADE GARMENTS DEALER, PARIPILLY, KOLLAM-691574. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.226 of 2011-C ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of January, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the consignor having place of business at Delhi, who had consigned the goods in question to the 3rd respondent, on the basis of Ext.P2 invoice. The goods in question was detained on issuing Ext.P3 notice under Section 47 (2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act) alleging the reason that the value of the goods shown is too low when compared with the prevailing market price. 2. On 10.1.2011 this Court had issued an interim direction to the competent authority under Section 47(5) and (6), having jurisdiction over the matter, to finalise the enquiry, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, on or before 18.1.2011. The petitioner was directed to submit objections and to appear for personal hearing, on 14.1.2011. It is specifically directed that, the authority should take note of the request of the petitioner to take back the goods without conducting any sale within the State, since it is stated that the 3rd respondent had refused to accept the goods. W.P(C) No.226 of 2011-C 2 3. Subsequently, the petitioner had produced a copy of the proceedings issued by the 1st respondent dtd.18.1.2011 (No.VCR II E/10-11). It is noticed that without conceiving the directions in its real perspective, the 1st respondent had arrived at a finding that the defect pointed by the Intelligence Inspector is still existing and that the goods can be released only on payment of security deposit. Hence the petitioner was again directed to remit the security deposit, otherwise it is threatened that the goods will be seized and sold in auction. It is further observed that, since the goods are in the custody of the consignee, the petitioner has no right to take back the goods. However, it is noticed that no final decision has been taken on the basis of the directions issued as to whether the petitioner or anybody else is liable to be imposed with penalty or not. 4. I notice that the goods in question is remaining under detention since 20.8.2010 onwards. Therefore, I am of the view that interest of justice will be served by directing release the goods, on the petitioner furnishing the Bank Guarantee for the amount of security deposit demanded. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing W.P(C) No.226 of 2011-C 3 the 1st respondent to take effective steps for release the goods detained under Ext.P3 on the petitioner furnishing Bank Guarantee for the amount of security deposit demanded. The competent authority under Section 47(5) and (6) having jurisdiction over the matter is directed to finalise the enquiry, if necessary after issuing notice to the 3rd respondent, at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the goods. 6. Needless to say that, the competent authority shall take note of the request of the petitioner to permit him to take back the goods since it is alleged that the sale has not been materialised and the 3rd respondent had refused to accept the goods. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab