IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 8944 of 2009(K) --------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- B.SARASWATHI, AGED 52, W/O. BALASUBRAMANIAM, 150,SIVA SAKHTHI VINAYAGAR, KOVIL STREET,TIRUPUR ROAD, KANKAYAM, ERODE DIST, TAMILNADU. PIN-638701. BY ADV. SRI.PRASAD CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX, COMMISSIONERATE, COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANATHAPURAM. 2. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, (INTELLIGENCE), OFFICE OF THE INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER(INTELLIGENCE), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD DIST. 3. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD.NO.IV, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, CAMP AT PALAKKAD DIST. 4. UNIQUE WOOD SYSTEMS, MUDICKAL.P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DIST. REPB. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR. T.A.ABDULLA. 5. VELAYUDHAN, SON OF NARAYANAN, RESIDING AT 5/119, SENTHIL HOUSE, PURAVIPALAYAM,NADUPUNI. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 8944 OF 2009 K -------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd March, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle which stands seized and detained under Section 49(3) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. The principal complaint is that the seizure and detention of the vehicle was not preceded by an opportunity of hearing as mandated in the proviso to Section 49(3) of the Act. Learned Government Pleader would point out that there was indeed notice as mandated in Section 49(3) to the person-in-charge. He further points out that it is appealable. I went though the order also. I would think that there is no case made out for interference under Article 226. Accordingly, the petitioner is relegated to prefer WPC.8944/09 K 2 Appeal and the Writ Petition is disposed of without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the alternate Forum. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge