IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2010 / 9TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27094 of 2010(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.A.SUDHAKARAN, KOTTARAM TRADERS, PULPPALLY, WYNAD. BY ADVS. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, SMT.K.HYMAVATHY. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. INTELLIGENCE INSEPCTOR, INTELLIGENCE SQUAD NO.V, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD-678 001. 2. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD – 673 592. 3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONR (INT) COMMERCIAL TAXES KALPETTA – 673 121. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/08/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.27094 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- The only grievance voiced by the petitioner in this writ petition is that, the respondents are taking steps for realising amounts covered under the Bank Guarantee furnished by him, as per Ext.P3, even without serving copy of the order through which penalty was imposed. Proceedings under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act was initiated by intercepting a transport on issuing Ext.P1 notice. The goods were released pending finalisation of adjudication, on the petitioner furnishing Bank Guarantee. Subsequently the Enquiry Officer had issued Ext.P4 notice of hearing and the petitioner was heard in the matter. It is submitted that he has not been served with copy of any proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent on finalising the adjudication. But he got information from the Bank that steps are being pursued for realising the amount covered under Bank Guarantee. According to the petitioner, he is intending to invoke appellate remedy against order if any issued imposing penalty, for which a copy of the order is W.P.(C).27094/10 -2- highly necessary. If the amount is recovered even without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to seek the appellate remedy, he will be put to severe prejudice, is the contention. 2. Heard learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. Considering facts and circumstances attendant in this case, I am of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the respondents to serve copy of the proceedings if any passed imposing penalty on the petitioner and till such time to keep in abeyance realisation Bank Guarantee. 3. The 2nd respondent is directed to serve a copy of the proceedings if any issued imposing penalty on the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is further directed that realisation of amounts covered under Ext.P3 Bank Guarantee shall be kept in abeyance for a period of three weeks, after service of copy of the proceedings in order to facilitate the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb