IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2008 / 12TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20044 of 2008(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ RAKESH KUMAR, S/O.RADHESHYAM, 100 GRAM WARD NO.3, AMAHA VASUDEV TEHSIL HANUMA DT. REVA, MADHYAPRADESH. BY ADV. SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE INTELIIGENCE OFFICER-I, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, (INTELLIGENCE), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR-4. 2. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR-4. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).20044/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner, who is a registered dealer within the State, submits that he had purchased 84 bags of black pepper from agriculturists in and around Thrissur and had consigned the same to Varanasi. He also submits that the goods were actually collected through three persons namely K.F.James, K.R.Mohanan and K.H.Badarudeen and these three persons had dispatched 24, 30 and 30 bags of black pepper respectively, as evidenced by Exts.P2 to P4 railway receipts. But the goods were detained in Thrissur Railway Platform suspecting evasion of tax. As evidenced by Ext.P5, the Chief Parcel Supervisor of Thrissur Railway Station directed the aforementioned persons to approach the first respondent for release of goods. According to the petitioner, goods were consigned at his instance and therefore, he, along with three persons shown as consignors, approached the first respondent for release of goods. By Ext.P7 order, W.P.(C).20044/2008 2 application filed by the aforementioned persons, treated as claim petition under Section 47(16) of the VAT Act, was rejected and the goods were directed to be seized and confiscated. As a consequence thereof, the goods are now proposed to be sold in public auction as per Ext.P8, which has been challenged by the petitioner in the writ petition. 2. The proposed auction is only a consequence of the confiscation ordered under Ext.P7. Petitioner is also entitled to challenge the said order before the appropriate authority under the VAT Act. In the result, writ petition is disposed of in the following terms 3. Petitioner may prefer an appeal before the competent authority under Section 55 of the VAT Act. If it is done within two weeks from today, it shall be considered and disposed of by the appellate authority within six weeks, thereafter. The auction of the goods as proposed under Ext.P8 shall be kept in abeyance, till W.P.(C).20044/2008 3 orders are passed by the appellate authority as aforementioned. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs