IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2010 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 12143 of 2010(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S. SAUD SANITARY & TILES, KUMARAMPUTHUR, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, T.MOHAMMED KUTTY. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.I, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 12143 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 7th April, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: i) to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing Exhibit P7 notice issued by the 1st respondent. ii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the first respondent that the godowns are declared godowns in which the goods were kept and return back the seized records from the custody of the petitioner by the 1st respondent, after taking copies of the documents, if it is necessary. iii) to issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on the basis of the reply filed by the petitioner as Ext.P9. W.P.(C) No. 12143 OF 2010 2 iv) to pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem justified in the facts and circumstances of the case; and v) to award cost of this proceedings to the petitioner. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the situation under which the goods happened to be stored in the undeclared godown, has been clearly explained in Ext.P9 filed in response to Ext.P7 notice dated 12.03.2010. It is stated that though the building was taken on lease on 01.02.2010, the door number was given by the local authority only on 15.02.2010 and only after obtaining the door number, the petitioner was able to declare the same before the departmental authorities. It was in the meanwhile, shop inspection was conducted by the concerned respondents on 11.02.2010. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that only prayer now pressed before this Court is to direct the first respondent to consider Ext. P9 and to finalise Ext.P7 proceedings. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. W.P.(C) No. 12143 OF 2010 3 4. Taking note of the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court does not find it necessary to go into the merits of the case. Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to consider Ext. P9 explanation offered from the part of the petitioner and finalise Ext.P7 proceedings, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment . The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk