IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 19738 of 2008 Between: K.B Vardharaju S/o. K.Bhagawan 11-1-4 Bangalore Road Hindupur,Anantapur District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-1, Anantapur Division Anantapur District 2 Station House Officer Bukkarayasamudram Anantapur District .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceeding Rc No.Nil/08- 09 dt 27-8-2008 issued by 1st respondent seizing one consignment of GN Cake consisting of 450 bags and valued at Rs 2,25,000/- and covered by V.No.T.N.04L/4167 under Section 45(7)b of APVAT act 2005 as illegal arbitrary and unjustiﬁed and contrary to the Entry 3 of I Schedule of APVAT act 2005 in the facts and circumstance of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:M/SC.KODANDA RAM Counsel for the RespondentS.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : . HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No:19738 OF 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to declare the proceedings in Rc.No.Nil/08-09, dated 27-8-2008 issued by 1st respondent seizing one consignment of GN Cake consisting of 450 bags worth Rs 2,25,000/- and covered by V.No.T.N.04L/4167 under Section 45(7)b of APVAT Act 2005, as illegal and contrary to the Entry 3 of I Schedule of APVAT Act 2005. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the authorities have not given any opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation and furnish any documents, before seizing the goods and that the goods in question are exempted from tax under Entry 3 of Schedule I of APVAT Act and that the goods in question are perishable in nature and if they are stored for a longer time, they would get spoiled, resulting in severe loss and therefore, a direction may be issued to the respondents to release the goods. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader contended that the goods in question are not covered by any document and the driver of the vehicle has not produced any documents at the time of checking and therefore, the goods were seized. The proceedings impugned goes to show that the driver of the goods vehicle is instructed to ﬁle objections, if any, against the seizure of the goods or produce the owners of goods, within seven days from the date of receipt of the impugned proceedings. In view of the fact that the impugned proceedings is nothing but a notice to ﬁle objections and in view of the facts and circumstances and the nature of the goods, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, We feel it a ﬁt case wherein the goods in question can be directed to be released but subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to release the goods in question forthwith to the petitioner subject to the condition of the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for Rs.2,25,000/-. However, it is made clear that this order will not preclude the respondents from proceeding with the regular enquiry. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _____________________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan Date: 12th September, 2008 Note: Communicate by wire at party’s costs (BO) Nn/Gurc. HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No:19738 OF 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T . Meena Kumari) 12.9.2008