IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 35460 of 2008(U) ---------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M/S.GARNISH CATERERS, 34/571 A, N.H.BYE PASS ROAD, OPPO.INDIA VISION, EDAPPALLY, BY ADV. SRI.K.N.CHANDRABABU SRI.T.C.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KVAT CIRCLE-11, KALAMASSERY. 2. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.11, MATTANCHERRY, EDAPPALLY. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-15. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 35460 OF 2008 U -------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd December, 2008 JUDGMENT Exts.P5 and P10 are challenged as illegal. A direction is sought to the second respondent to return the articles seized from the business premises of the petitioner as per Ext.P1 shop inspection report. Ext.P5 is a notice under Section 67(1) of the KVAT Act. Likewise, Ext.P10 is also a notice under Section 67 of the KVAT Act. To both Exts.P5 and P10, the petitioner has submitted replies. I feel that I need not consider the challenge to Exts.P5 and P10 as they are essentially notices. No doubt, the case of the petitioner is that the Authority should drop the proceedings. 2. Pursuant to Ext.P1 inspection report, certain articles came to be seized from the business premises of the petitioner. Ext.P1 shop inspection was conducted on 4.2.2008. The Writ Petition was filed on 1.12.2008. Learned Government Pleader WPC.35460/08 U 2 does not seriously dispute the liability of the second respondent to return the articles (they are stated to be documents by the learned counsel for the petitioner as evident from Ext.P1). Learned Government Pleader submits that after taking copies of the documents, the documents will be returned. In such circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: I am not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition against Exts.P5 and P10 being merely notices. Necessarily, the Officer must consider each and every objection of the petitioner, in particular, as pointed out by Shri K.N. Chandrababu, learned counsel for petitioner, the contention that having paid the compounding fee, the proceedings must be dropped. Of course, necessarily, the petitioner must be given an opportunity of hearing before any order is passed pursuant to Exts.P5 and P10 notices. There will be a direction to the second respondent to return the original of the documents seized from the petitioner WPC.35460/08 U 3 vide Ext.P1 shop inspection report, after taking copies, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge