IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 8TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27462 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S. SRI BALAJI ROAD LINES (REGD), BENEDICT ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-18, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER, K.K. NANDANAN. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.T.G.ABHILASH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.1, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.27462 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by detention of goods covered under Ext.P1 Consignment Note, transported from Maharashtra to Chennai. Petitioner is a transporting agent (parcel service) and the goods in question was booked at the office of the petitioner at Bhiwandi in Maharashtra by the consignor for transportation to their branch at Chennai. According to the petitioner due to an oversight on the part of the clerk who was handling preparation of lorry receipts, the goods were mistakenly consigned to Cochin, along with transport of other goods consigned to Cochin. The vehicle in which the goods were transported was intercepted by the respondent and having noticed that the goods in question are actually consigned to Chennai, the same is detained by issuing Ex.P3 notice. 2. Complaint of the petitioner is that pursuant to the detention the authorities have not completed the adjudication process and the vehicle which contains other goods is now being detained in the custody of the respondent. Therefore the petitioner is seeking directions for release of the goods. 3. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the W.P.(C).27462/09 2 case I am of the opinion that the question whether there was any attempt of evasion of tax, need be decided on finalisation of the adjudication proceedings as contemplated under Section 47 (5) and (6) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. Pending finalisation of the adjudication there is no reason for detaining the goods other than which are intercepted. Therefore it is necessary to direct release of other goods after unloading the goods which are intercepted under Ext.P3 notice. Further, finalisation of the adjudication proceedings need be directed to be expedited by the competent authority. 4. In the result the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to unload the goods detained under Ext.P3 notice, and to release the vehicle along with the other goods. The competent authority under Section 47 (5) and (6) of the Act is directed to expedite the adjudication and to finalise the proceedings, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb