IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 14TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2643 of 2011(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ P.A.UTHUBATHU, S/O.ABOOBACKER, PROPRIETOR, M/S.SURANA GRANITES, VETTIKKATTIRI POST, VALLATHOL NAGAR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, ILTELLIGENCE SQUAD NO.VIII, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM-682016. 2. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, INTELLIGENCE SQUAD NO.VIII, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM-682016. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVT., DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVAANANTHAPURAM-625 525. 4. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, WALAYAR CHECK POST,PALAKKAD-678 624. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.2643 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Through an interim order dt. 25.1.2011 this court had issued direction to the 2nd respondent to finalise the enquiry, after conducting measurement of the Marble slabs, if necessary with the help of an expert, on the expense of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner had produced Ext.P3, a further notice issued under Section 47(2) on completion of the measurement. It is evident that, after conducting measurement, the authority found that there is difference in quantity to the extent of 913.01 Sq.ft. Hence the security deposit demanded is revised to the tune of Rs.18,443/-. The petitioner was requested to make payment of the said amount along with advance tax and cess due to the tune of Rs.9,221/-. Through Ext.P4 the petitioner was also requested to make payment of an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards the fee for measurement. 3. Contention of the petitioner is that the measurement was done not in a proper manner. The breakage loss, as W.P.(C).2643/11 -2- acceptable in the method of measurement in common business parlance, was not adopted in the case, is the allegation. 4. However, I notice that the enquiry contemplated under Section 47(5) & (6) is yet to be completed. It is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to raise all contentions before the competent authority, including the dispute regarding correctness of the measurement. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that, the goods in question is remaining detained since 24.1.2011 onwards. Hence he seeks direction for release of the goods pending finalisation of the enquiry. 5. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to finalise the enquiry, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Pending finalisation of the enquiry the respondents are directed to release the goods along with the vehicle, on the petitioner remitting advance tax as demanded under Ext.P3 (to the tune of Rs.9,221/-) and also on furnishing Security Bond for the amount of deposit demanded under Ext.P3, in the format prescribed under the KVAT Rules, without sureties. W.P.(C).2643/11 -3- 6. The petitioner will also make payment of the expenses demanded under Ext.P4. 7. The enquiry as directed above shall be finalised as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of release of the goods. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb