KESAVA PANICKER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these three writ petitions Mr. T. N. Subramania Iyer, learned counsel for the respective petitioners, challenges the order of the respective Sales Tax Officer, issuing notices to the concerned petitioners on the basis of the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 16A of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125 (Act XI of 1125).

(2.) THE contention that is raised before us in all these writ petitions by the learned counsel is that before taking action for confiscation of the goods, no opportunity of being heard has been given to the concerned petitioners, nor has an enquiry in the manner prescribed been conducted as is mandatory under the proviso to sub-sections (1) to (5) of section 16A of the Act.

(3.) IN the counter-affidavit, the State has referred to the fact that there has been no violation of any of the provisions of either the Statute or the Rules. IN paragraph 2 of the counter-affidavit in particular, the respondent categorically states that the person in charge of the goods vehicle did not carry with him any of the documents as required by section 16A(3) of the Act and the person in charge of the goods and also the petitioner who is the owner thereof declined to pay the tax as provided in sub-section (6) of section 16A in lieu of confiscation of the said goods. There is a further statement to the effect : "Hence the goods were duly confiscated by me. They are liable to be sold and added to the revenues of the State".