Right to be heard in vehicle seizure proceedings is limited to the registered owner or consignor, not a financier.

In proceedings under section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, the right to be heard is confined to the registered owner of the vehicle or the owner of the consignment. A financier with only an indirect financial interest is not a person entitled to notice or hearing, so the absence of such hearing does not vitiate the adjudication or appellate orders. The challenge based on breach of natural justice therefore failed, and no relief was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the financier of a vehicle seized in proceedings under section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was entitled to be heard before the adjudication order and the appellate order were passed.

Analysis: The seizure and adjudication arose under section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The Court held that in such proceedings the persons entitled to be heard are the registered owner of the vehicle or the owner of the consignment, and not every person claiming an indirect interest such as a financier. Since the petitioner did not fall within the category of persons required to be heard under the provision, the absence of notice or hearing did not vitiate the orders. The Court therefore found no ground to interfere with the adjudication and appellate orders.

Conclusion: The challenge based on violation of natural justice failed, and the writ petition was not entitled to relief.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under section 47(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, the right of hearing is confined to the registered owner of the vehicle or the owner of the consignment, and a financier is not entitled to be heard merely by reason of financial interest in the vehicle.

---