INDUS IND. BANK LTD Vs. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be the financier of an excavator which was purchased by the fourth respondent. It appears that the equipment was seized by the sales tax authorities in terms of the provisions contained in section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. Proceedings under section 47(2) resulted in exhibit P2 order of adjudication. That order was confirmed in appeal as per exhibit P3. It is at that stage, the petitioner has approached this court seeking a direction to release the vehicle and to quash exhibits P2 and P3 for the reason that it has been passed without hearing the petitioner which is an affected party. As far as the plea of the petitioner that orders are vitiated for the reason that the petitioner was not heard in the matter is concerned, I am of the view that in a proceedings under section 47(2) of the Act, the registered owner of the vehicle or the owner of the consignment in question alone are liable to be heard. If that be so, these orders do not call for interference on the ground that the petitioner has not been heard in the matter. In such circumstances, I do not find any substance in the contentions raised by the petitioner.

(2.) Now that so long as exhibits P2 and P3 orders are in force, it is for the parties concerned to comply with the same and to get the vehicle released. With the above clarification, the writ petition is disposed of.