IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 21ST APRIL 2009 / 1ST VAISAKHA 1931 WP(C).No. 11993 of 2009(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- U.K.SPICES, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, K.UMMER, K.P.V/890, PULLANCHERI PARAMBA, KAVANOOR P.O., MALAPPURAM DT. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR SRI.P.VINODKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, MANJERI P.O., MALAPPURAM DT. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, III, OFFICE OF THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, I, ANANTAPUR P.O., ANDHRAPRADESH STATE. 4. THE REGIONAL VIGILANCE AND ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, ANANTAPUR P.O., ANDHRAPRADESH STATE. G.P. SHRI.K.R.GOVINDAN, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.11993 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 21st day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. The petitioner was issued five notices from the 3rd respondent informing the petitioner that the 4th respondent intercepted certain transport of arecanut allegedly belonging to the petitioner. Delivery notes have been seized from the petitioner and Ext.P6 notice has been issued to the petitioner regarding demand for additional security deposit under section 17(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. The petitioner is seeking the following reliefs in this writ petition. “1. Call for the records leading up to Ext.P6 notice dated 27.2.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent and quash the same by issuing a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, 2. Declare that the actions taken by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner under the proviso of section 17(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act and Rule 19(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules are illegal and arbitrary. 3. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, directing the 2nd respondent to return the delivery note and sale bill book seized as per Ext.P4 report to the petitioner forthwith.” 2. As far as the challenge against Ext.P6 is concerned, I am of opinion that the last sentence in Ext.P6 makes it abundantly clear that Ext.P6 is only a proposal for which objections have been called for from the petitioner. It is open to the petitioner to file objections to Ext.P6, which the petitioner has in fact done by Ext.P7. Therefore, 2 unless an order pursuant to Ext.P6 has been passed adverse to the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be aggrieved by Ext.P6 notice itself. As far as the other prayer relating the release of delivery note is concerned, I am of opinion that the 2nd respondent shall complete the proceedings initiated pursuant to Ext.P4, as expeditiously as possible. 3. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The 2nd respondent shall pass an order pursuant to Ext.P4 after considering Ext.P7 objections filed by the petitioner. The petitioner shall not be required to deposit additional security until an order has been passed pursuant to Ext.P6. Regarding the other prayer, the 2nd respondent shall complete the proceedings initiated pursuant to Ext.P4 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge