2020 (3) TMI 1085

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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 1st 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 Plead....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in the matter on 14.1.2020. Even now, the 1st respondent has not chosen to give specific factual instructions to the learned Government Pleader as to whether he had afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The abovesaid facts asserted by the petitioner have not been controverted by the respondents. Therefore, it is only to be held that the 1st respondent has not granted personal hearing to the petitioner before taking a decision as per Ext.P-7 order dated 13.1.2020, even though he had invited the petitioner for a personal hearing to be conducted on 14.1.2020 as per Ext.P-5(d) notice dated 6.1.2020. Hence it is only to be held that the impugned order at Ext.P-7 is illegal and ultra vires and the same has been issued....