IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 22ND MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 4062 of 2011(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER:- ------------------ BABU P.SIMON, PROP. V.ONE ASSOCIATES C & F AGENTS OF CHETTINAD CEMENTS LTD., BUILDING NO.519A, WARD NO.1, NJ, MURINGOOR THOTTATHIL BUILDING, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT:- -------------------- MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689645. SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.4062 of 2011-G. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th February, 2011. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the registered owner of a goods vehicle bearing No.TN47/V8050, which is covered by a National Permit. On 5.2.2011 when the vehicle was transporting cement to Perunad Dam it was intercepted by the respondent and Ext.P6 check report was issued. According to the petitioner, the cement which was carried in the vehicle at the time of interception was transported from the factory of M/s.Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd., at Karur in Tamil Nadu and the transport was made to the godown owned by the petitioner at Kaviyoor near Thiruvalla, since the petitioner is also a C & F agent of the above said company. It is further stated that the same goods without unloading at godown was transported for delivery at Perunad Dam. However, it is contended that on the basis of Ext.P6 check report, the respondent had detained the WP(C).No.4062 of 2011-G. 2 vehicle insisting on payment of tax with respect to the alleged local transport effected. 2. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent had made available for my perusal the written instructions received from the respondents. It is stated that the vehicle was found conducting intra-state service from Thiruvalla to Perunad. Whereas the invoice which accompanied the transport was intended for carrying cement from Karur to Thiruvalla. Finding that there is violation of Rule 90(7) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, the check report was prepared, with direction to remit tax for the month of February and March, 2011. However, it is specifically stated that the allegation regarding detention is baseless and the vehicle was allowed to be proceeded. It is mentioned that the vehicle was never been detained. 3. Considering the rival contention, I am of the view that the proceeding initiated based on Ext.P6 check report has to be finalised by the competent authority. The WP(C).No.4062 of 2011-G. 3 petitioner is at liberty to raise objections regarding the proposal for imposition of tax. Since it is made clear that there is no detention of the vehicle, the petitioner will be at liberty to take the vehicle if it is still remaining in the custody of respondents. However, liability for payment of tax amount if any demanded will be subject to outcome of the proceedings initiated based on the Check Report. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, (Judge) Kvs/-