P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. - (1.) The appellant is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.14852 of 2016. He had in the writ petition prayed for quashing Ext.P6 notice issued under Sec.48(3) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the first respondent to release the goods vehicle belonging to him and the goods carried therein. The learned single Judge who heard the writ petition directed that the goods be released, on the premise that the petitioner is aggrieved by the detention of goods on the ground that the vehicle in which goods were transported had earlier undertaken a transit transport, but the transit pass was not surrendered at the exit check post. The petitioner who is the owner of the motor vehicle has filed this writ appeal aggrieved by the denial of relief in respect of the motor vehicle.
(2.) When this writ appeal came up for hearing before us in the pre -lunch session, it was adjourned to the post -lunch session so as to enable us to ascertain the correct legal position. To a query from us as to what is the purport of the impugned order, Sri. Raju Joseph, learned senior advocate of this court submitted that the impugned order is only a notice under Sec.48(3) of the KVAT Act, and that there is no detention of the goods or of the vehicle involved and therefore the grievance projected by the petitioner is imaginery.
(3.) On going through the impugned order, we are satisfied that neither the goods nor the vehicle had been detained. The sales tax authorities had not detained the vehicle or goods under Sec.49 of the KVAT Act. Such being the situation, we are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to an order directing the respondents to permit him to take away the vehicle, of course, subject to their right to pass final orders pursuant to the impugned notice and to take appropriate action against the petitioner. We accordingly dispose of the writ appeal by directing the respondents to permit the appellant to remove the motor vehicle referred to in Ext.P6 notice. Such removal will not however prejudice the right of the competent authority from proceeding further with Ext.P6 notice.;