AHNAS MOHAMMED Vs. ASST. STATE TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case projected in the above Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows:- That the petitioner, who is engaged in the business of trading of motor cycles, has entered into a lease agreement with reference to an additional place of business at Karunagappally. The above intention of the petitioner to start additional place of business was intimated to the jurisdictional officer, which can be seen from Ext.P-1. It is stated that a consignment of 10 motor cycles for exhibition purposes at the new premises have been detained by the 1 st respondent, as according to the 1st respondent, the petitioner cannot have such additional place of business at Karunagappally. The petitioner states that the 1st respondent does not have authority to do so and only the jurisdictional authority has power to do so. The above detention of goods was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P. (C).No. 674/2020 before this Court. When the said case came up on 13.1.2020, this Court had posted the same to 16.1.2020 based on the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner has to attend a personal hearing on 14.1.2020. But that the 1 st respondent has issued Ext.P-7 order demanding tax and penalty on 13.1.2020 itself without granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is in the above facts and circumstances that the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers:

(2.) Heard Sri.Harisankar V.Menon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Dr.Thushara James, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents.

(3.) Later, the petitioner sought leave of this Court to withdraw W.P.(C).No. 674/2020 with liberty to him to file a fresh Writ Petition to challenge the present impugned Ext.P-7 order. This Court as per judgment dated 14.1.2020 has dismissed W.P.(C).No. 674/2020 as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies in the manner known to law. Subsequently, in the present Writ Petition (Civil) filed on 20.1.2020, this Court after hearing both sides passed interim order dated 23.1.2020 directing that the vehicle and the goods seized pursuant to Ext.P-5 series have to be released to the petitioner on his furnishing bank guarantee for the value of the tax and penalty shown in the impugned proceedings, etc. It is now submitted by both sides that in compliance with the abovesaid interim order dated 23.1.2020, the 1st respondent has released the abovesaid goods and vehicles as the petitioner had submitted the abovesaid bank guarantee. In the said order, this Court had directed the 1st respondent to furnish factual instructions to the learned Government Pleader as to whether the petitioner was afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the impugned decision as per Ext.P-7 order dated 13.1.2020 was rendered by the said officer.