IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31438 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJU M.A.,S/O.ANTONY, MALIYAKKAL HOUSE,VALLACHIRA, VADOOKKARA P.O.,THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMERCIAL OFFICER (INQUIRY), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX,PALAKKAD. 3. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER/INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST,WALAYAR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.31438 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. A consignment of timber transported by the petitioner for own use for the purpose of construction of his residential building was intercepted by the 3rd respondent on 3.5.09 and detained on issuing Ext.P7 notice as contemplated under Section 47(2) of Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act). Pursuant to detention the petitioner had remitted an amount of Rs.79,538/- being the security deposit demanded for release of the goods, as evidenced by Ext.P9, and the goods were released on deposit of the said amount as evidenced by Ext.P8. Grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of release of the goods as early as on 3.5.2009, the respondents 2 and 3 is not finalising the adjudication proceedings as contemplated under Section 47 (5) and (6) and is not issuing any other order thereon. 2. According to the petitioner the transport was purely for own use and it was supported by valid documents as per Ext.P1 to P6. It is averred that after release of the goods the 3rd respondent had issued a notice to the petitioner calling him for a personal hearing on 23.7.09 and the petitioner through his W.P.(C).31438/09- 2 counsel appeared before the 2nd respondent and submitted all documents in support of his claim. Ext.P12 is the notice of hearing issued to the petitioner in this regard. Complaint of the petitioner is that eventhough hearing was conducted on 23.7.2009 the 2nd respondent has not so far issued any orders. In this regard the petitioner had submitted Ext.P10 petition supported by an affidavit before the 2nd respondent seeking release of the security deposit. But no action has been taken so far. 3. Heard, counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. Having considered facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to pass orders on finalisation of adjudication as contemplated under Section 47(6). Since the detention was during the month of May 2009 the matter need immediate disposal by the 2nd respondent. 4. In the result the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to pass orders on finalisation of adjudication as contemplated under Section 47(6) of the KVAT Act, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb