IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2011 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 12794 of 2011(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.V.ANTO, S/O. A.J.VARGHESE, ALUKKA HOUSE, AVENUE ROAD, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.IV, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD-678 001. 2. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.IV, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD-678 001. 3. CANARA BANK, THRISSUR MAIN BRANCH, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER-680 001. BY ADV.SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.12794 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of May, 2011. J U D G M E N T Car bearing registration No.KL-8/AR-8203, owned by the petitioner, was intercepted by the 1st respondent while transporting gold ornaments. Through Ext.P2, a notice was issued to the petitioner intimating the proposal for imposing penalty under section 69(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act, to the tune of Rs.16,17,802/-. The petitioner along with the owner of the gold had approached this Court challenging the detention. In Ext.P3 order this Court directed release of the vehicle to the petitioner subject to production of proof regarding its ownership and on furnishing bank guarantee to the tune of the amounts demanded as penalty. Ext.P4 is the bank guarantee furnished and the vehicle was released. Subsequently, the writ petition was disposed of on 11.4.2011 directing the competent authority to finalise the enquiry and to pass 2 W.P.(C).No.12794 of 2011 appropriate orders. According to the petitioner, he had submitted objections against the proposal for imposing penalty, as per Ext.P5, on 19.4.2011. But the 2nd respondent had issued Ext.P6 order finalising the enquiry and confirming the proposal for imposing penalty on the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P6 order, as one issued without affording an opportunity to file objections and without conducting any personal hearing. It is contended that there is no consideration on merits and the order of penalty was issued in a mechanical manner, merely relying on the reasons stated for detention. 2. On a perusal of Ext.P6 it is noticed that the only reasons stated by the 2nd respondent for imposing penalty is that, the transport was not accompanied by any documents as prescribed under section 46(3) of the KVAT Act. It is further mentioned that the petitioner had failed to furnish any explanation regarding such a defect. But from the facts of the case it is evident that the 2nd 3 W.P.(C).No.12794 of 2011 respondent, who is the competent authority, has not issued any notice to the petitioner before finalising the matter, nor any opportunity for personal hearing was seen afforded. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that Ext.P6 suffers from the defect of non-compliance of natural justice. Under the above mentioned circumstances, I am inclined to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the matter afresh and to take a fresh decision, after affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P6 and directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P5 objections submitted by the petitioner against the proposal, and to take a fresh decision after affording an opportunity of personal hearing. A decision in this regard shall be taken at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 4. Till such time decision is taken on the matter as 4 W.P.(C).No.12794 of 2011 directed above, the petitioner shall keep the bank guarantee already furnished, as alive, if necessary by renewal. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/