Kerala High Court
WP(C)/38066/2008 of KARANARAM CHOUDHARY Vs THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER on 26 December 2008
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH DECEMBER 2008 / 5TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 38066 of 2008(F) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ KARANARAM CHOUDHARY, XL III-2858, NIZAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 26TH DECEMBER 2008 / 5TH POUSHA 1930
WP(C).No. 38066 of 2008(F)
---------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
------------------------
KARANARAM CHOUDHARY, XL III-2858, NIZAR
COMPLEX, PAIKKADA ROAD, KOLLAM-691 001.
BY ADV. SRI.K.J.ABRAHAM
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------------------
1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, COMMERCIAL
TAXES, SQUAD NO.I, KOLLAM.
2. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, COMMERCIAL
TAXES, SQUAD NO.III, KOLLAM.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.TEK CHAND
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 26/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C).No.38066 of 2008-F
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 26[th]day of December, 2008.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner, a 25 year old, who states in hisaffidavit that he is a proprietor, has certainlease deeds shown to be in his favour. He isdescribed in Ext.P1(a) as hailing from JalareDistrict in Rajastan, having a driving school inMangalore. affidavit that he is a proprietor, has certainlease deeds shown to be in his favour. He isdescribed in Ext.P1(a) as hailing from JalareDistrict in Rajastan, having a driving school inMangalore.
2. Certain goods were intercepted by the firstrespondent Intelligence Officer from the RailwayStation, Kollam. Thereafter, there was anothersearch and seizure on the basis of Ext.P6 whichis a shop inspection report which shows seizureof various electronic items. Penalty was imposed.respondent Intelligence Officer from the RailwayStation, Kollam. Thereafter, there was anothersearch and seizure on the basis of Ext.P6 whichis a shop inspection report which shows seizureof various electronic items. Penalty was imposed.
3. I do not deem it appropriate to prevent thecompletion of proceedings in any manner. completion of proceedings in any manner.
-: 2 :-
4. The plea of the petitioner is for release of theconfiscated goods on the assumption that there isalready a confiscation. It appears to be sobecause, after the interim order was issued at3.10 p.m. on 23-12-2008 that the goods shall notbe disposed of, today it is reported by thelearned Government Pleader that except 74individual packets, all other items were sold inauction in connection with a trade mela before theinterim order was issued.
5. All that now remains is that the petitioner canappear before the first respondent, obtainnecessary further materials and have conclusion ofproceedings in terms of the KVAT Act. However,following the earlier direction, the remaininggoods shall not be disposed of until conclusion ofproceedings on any request of the petitioner asstated above. If the petitioner appears before thefirst respondent within two weeks, the proceedingsshall be concluded within a period of six weeks in WP(C)38066/08
-: 3 :-
accordance with law.
The petitioner shall produce a copy of thisjudgment before the first respondent. The writpetition is ordered accordingly.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
Sha/261208