IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2010 / 22TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1023 of 2010(C) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M/S. HCL COMNET LTD., 806, SIDHARTH, 96, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-19, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER SRI.SREERENJ E.S. BY ADVS. MR.V.V.ASOKAN, MR.K.S.SAJEEV KUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, MUTHANGA-WAYANAD DISTRICT. 2. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.2, COMMERCIAL TAXES, WAYANAD AT SULTHAN BATHERY. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE. 4. COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR CLARIFICATION, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ----------------------------- W.P(C) No. 1023 of 2010-C ------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T As per Ext.P1 notice issued under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act, the goods transported by the petitioner in vehicle No.TN 37 AW 9798 were intercepted, which was challenged by filing W.P(C) No.25296 of 2009 before this Court and it was disposed of, directing the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee. Aggrieved by the said direction, the petitioner challenged the same by filing W.A.No.2011 of 2009, which led to Ext.P3 judgment, whereby the petitioner was permitted to take up the matter by approaching the Commissioner for clarification obtainable under Section 94 of the Act. Accordingly the matter was taken up before the Commissioner/fourth respondent, who after considering the relevant facts and figures issued Ext.P6 order dated 12.12.2009 holding that the goods are not exigible to tax. 2. In the meanwhile, penalty proceedings were finalised and the penalty imposed upon the petitioner had to be challenged by the petitioner by filing Ext.P5 appeal before the second respondent, which is stated as still pending. In view of the admitted fact that the W.P(C) No. 1023 of 2010-C 2 goods are still detained for the past five months, the petitioner preferred Ext.P7 request before the third respondent, for getting the goods released, in view of the clarification given by the Commissioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the third respondent, who is the appellate authority, is bound to act as per Ext.P6 clarification issued by the fourth respondent. More so, in view of the stipulation contained under sub section 5 of Section 94. In the above facts and circumstances, the third respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on Ext.P5 appeal, particularly in the light of the clarification given by the fourth respondent vide Ext.P6, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The goods detained by the first respondent as per Ext.P1, shall be released to the petitioner forthwith, if not released already. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// ab P.A to Judge W.P(C) No. 1023 of 2010-C 3