Mobile View
Main Search Forums Advanced Search Disclaimer
Kerala High Court
E.S.Dileep vs State Of Kerala And Others on 16 September, 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 24843 of 2011(E)

1. E.S.DILEEP

... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS

... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN Dated :16/09/2011

O R D E R

K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J.

------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 24843 OF 2011

----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th September, 2011. JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a registered dealer for timber under the Kerala Value Added Tax, 2003. According to the petitioner, he is having a branch at Kuttippuram. For the purpose of loading and unloading timber he wanted to purchase a crane, for which permission has been granted by the third respondent as per Exts.P4 and P7. However, when the crane was being transported from Hyderabad the same has been detained along with the vehicle at the Walayar Check post. The petitioner has also been issued Ext.P5 proceedings by the second respondent alleging suspected evasion of tax. Though the petitioner replied to the letter by producing Exts.P4 and P7, his explanation has not been accepted. Consequently, the vehicle with the goods thereon have been under detention from 12-9-2011 onwards. The petitioner seeks release of the detained goods.

2. The learned Govt. Pleader submits that the goods have been detained only because there were irregularities in the documents that accompanied the goods. However, in the light of WPC 24843/2011 2

Exts.P4 and P7 he has no objection to the goods being released on security being furnished.

3. In the above circumstances this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to release the vehicle and goods detained as per Ext.P5, on the petitioner furnishing security for such release by executing a personal bond to the satisfaction of the second respondent. There shall be a further direction to the second respondent to complete the adjudication proceedings as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K. SURENDRA MOHAN

Judge

jj

WPC 24843/2011 3