IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2009 / 12TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 38102 of 2008(J) --------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. KIRMUSI CASHEW EXIM PVT. LTD., 2ND FLOOR, UNION BUILDING, ASHRAMAM, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY - PRADEEP KUMAR. 2. KANNAN, PROPRIETOR, M/S.KANNAN ENTERPRISES, SAYABI TOWN LIMIT, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, SQUAD NO.1, KOLLAM. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASST.), SPECIAL CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 38102 OF 2008 J -------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd January, 2009 JUDGMENT Case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows: First petitioner is the agent of a foreign seller. Second petitioner is a registered dealer in cashew at Kollam. It is stated that the second petitioner placed orders for purchasing cashew from the foreign seller. Contracts were executed. Advance payment was made. The goods were shipped. Financial constraints have compelled the second petitioner to seek time for paying the balance amount. Second petitioner was permitted to clear the cargo and keep it in the godown under custody and supervision of the first petitioner, the agent of the foreign seller. Second respondent conducted an inspection and he prepared Ext.P13 Inspection Report and he concluded that the goods are unaccounted goods kept for local sale by the first petitioner. It is the case of the petitioners that the second respondent has WPC.38102/08 J 2 issued Ext.P14 notice to the first petitioner purported to be under Sections 44(8) and (10) of the KVAT Act, and the first petitioner is taking steps to file objection and to contest the proceedings. Complaint in the Writ Petition is, however, that the second respondent, without issuing any written order, has prohibited the parties from appropriating the cargo in accordance with their contract. It is stated that the second petitioner is ready to make the balance payment to the foreign seller. It is the contention of the petitioners that Sections 44(8) and (10) do not authorise the Officer to seize the goods which are owned by a dealer. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Government Pleader. Learned Government Pleader on instructions would submit that there is no order detaining the goods. I record this submission. I make it clear that it is for the first petitioner to file objection to Ext.P14 notice and to raise all WPC.38102/08 J 3 contentions available in law before the Authority. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge