IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2011 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6909 of 2011(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER:- ------------------- CROMPTON GREAVES LIMITED, CHERUPUSHPAM BUILDINGS, 300-6, 5TH FLOOR, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 031, REPRESENTED BY MR. H.SRIDHARAN, MANAGER-FINANCE. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH JERARD SAMSON RODRIGUES SRI.ROVIN RODRIGUES RESPONDENTS:- ---------------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.III, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.IV, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM AT EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-682 024. 3. THE MANAGER, CANARA BANK, KODAMBAKKAM BRANCH, CHENNAI-600 034. BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.6909 of 2011-K. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th March, 2011. J U D G M E N T Proceedings under Section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act) was initiated against the petitioner by Ext.P14 notice. The goods under detention was released on the petitioner furnishing bank guarantee as per Ext.P15, for the value of security deposit demanded. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent had finalised the enquiry, as contemplated under Sec.47(5). It is stated that, penalty was imposed against the petitioner under Sec.47(6) and on that basis the 2nd respondent took steps to realise the bank guarantee. Ext.P16 letter was issued to the concerned Bank requesting to realise the amount covered under the bank guarantee. Grievance of the petitioner is that the steps were initiated without even serving a copy of the order imposing penalty on the petitioner. It is pointed out that the petitioner has got a right of appeal against the order and WP(C).No.6909 of 2011-K. 2 the steps initiated without issuing a copy of such order is highly illegal and unreasonable. 2. Heard; Government Pleader for respondents. Considering the facts and circumstances as stated above, I am of the view that interest of justice will be served if a direction is issued to serve a copy of the order imposing penalty on the petitioner, and the petitioner is facilitated with an opportunity to file appeal. It is only just and proper to restrain realisation of the Bank Guarantee till the disposal of the appeal, if the petitioner choses to file statutory appeal against such order. 3. Therefore, the writ petition is disposal of directing the 2nd respondent to serve a copy of the order imposing penalty on the petitioner, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. If the copy of the order is served, the petitioner is directed to file appeal before the statutory authority, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. If any such appeal is filed by WP(C).No.6909 of 2011-K. 3 the petitioner as directed above, the respondent shall keep in abeyance realisation of the amount covered under the bank guarantee till the disposal of such appeal, which the appellate authority is directed to hear and dispose of at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such appeal. 4. The petitioner will keep Ext.P15 bank guarantee alive, if necessary, till then. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, (Judge) Kvs/-