IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 4242 of 2010(E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SWASTIC SALES AGENCY, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROP.RAMBILAS AGARWAL. BY ADV. MR.C.J.XAVIER RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.3, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE), COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, NEYYATTINKARA. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.4242 of 2010-E ---------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T The goods transported by the petitioner in the vehicle bearing No.TN 28Y/7855 were intercepted by the first respondent, issuing Ext.P1 notice dtd.30.6.1996, suspecting evasion of tax and demanding security deposit of Rs.31,200/-. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has satisfied the requisite amount, as borne by Ext.P2 receipt, so as to have the vehicle as well as the goods released. But despite filing several representations, as borne by Ext.P3 dtd.12.9.1996, Ext.P5 dtd.28.4.2007, Ext.P6 dtd.9.3.1998, Ext.P7 dtd.1.11.1999 and Ext.P8 dtd.15.9.2009 by registered post, the adjudication proceedings are yet to be finalised and hence the amount collected from the petitioner is liable to be refunded to the petitioner. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits that the proceedings admittedly being of the year 1996, some more time is necessary to trace out the records and to have W.P(C) No.4242 of 2010-E 2 the proceedings finalised. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the there is callous inaction and inordinate delay on the part of the respondents in finalising the proceedings and that despite sending many a representation as aforesaid, not even a reply has been sent so far, which shows that the inaction is deliberate, causing much loss and hardship to the petitioner. It is also the case of the petitioner that, by virtue of Ext.P4 Circular issued by the Government, the consignee or the consignor is very much entitled to make the request for transfer of the file to be dealt with by the concerned Sales Tax Officer and that the petitioner has made a request in this regard as well. The learned Government Pleader however submits that the request made by the petitioner in this regard placing reliance on Ext.P4 is not correct or sustainable. However, the fact remains that Ext.P1 notice issued way back on 30.6.1996 while intercepting the goods has to be taken to a logical conclusion on the basis of the relevant facts and figures and relevant provisions of law. 4. In the above facts and circumstances, the respondents are directed to pursue and finalise the adjudication proceedings in W.P(C) No.4242 of 2010-E 3 respect of Ext.P1, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is also made clear that if any amount is held as liable to be refunded to the petitioner, the same shall be caused to be refunded to the petitioner with interest at the rate as applicable in law, within three weeks thereafter. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab