C. K. Abdul Rehim, J.

1. The common petitioner in all these 3 cases claims to be the authorised promoter in the State of Kerala for lottery organised by the State of Sikkim, coming within the definition of promoter under S.2(1) of the Kerala Tax on Paper Lotteries Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as the Taxation Act, for short). The cause of action in these cases relates to actions initiated by the 6th respondent pursuant to detention of a consignment of paper lotteries transported to the State of Kerala, in vehicle bearing No. TN - 07 / AD - 5566.

2. WP (C) No. 26912/2010 was filed seeking to quash Ext. P10 & P11 notices and Ext. P13 order issued by the 6th respondent, invoking powers under S.30(1) & (2) of the Taxation Act. Through Ext. P13 order the 6th respondent took a decision to detain and seize the goods along with the vehicle, to be produced before the 5th respondent for proceeding with further steps under S.30(1) & (2).

3. On the basis of Ext. P13 order in WP (C) 26912/2010, proposal notices were issued by the 5th respondent for imposition of penalty under S.27(1) and S.30(1) of the Taxation Act. Challenge in WP (C) No. 28060/2010 is against Ext. P18 therein, notice proposing penalty under S.27(1). Challenge in WP (C) 28081/2010 is against Ext. P16 therein, notice proposing penalty under S.30(1). The 5th respondent was restrained by this Court through an interim order, from passing final orders based on such notices, and no order of penalty was issued till date.

4. A brief history of the case is narrated here under, referring to exhibits marked in WP (C) 26912/2010. On interception of the transport the 6th respondent issued Ext. P10 notice alleging that, on verification of documents accompanying the transport, certain discrepancies were noticed regarding change in the scheme from 19/08/2010 onwards, with respect to Draw No. 232 of Sikkim Super Deluxe and Sikkim Super Classic lotteries, resulting in doubling of the prize to Rs.50 lakhs and increase in the price of lotteries to Rs.20/-. As Advance Tax was remitted without considering such change, a willful plan to evade payment of tax and fraudulent movement of lottery tickets was suspected. Hence, the person in charge of the vehicle was requested to make necessary arrangements for physical verification, in order to quantify the number of tickets transported.

5. After conducting physical verification, Ext. P11 notice was served on the petitioner and on the driver of the vehicle. In Ext. P11 it is alleged that the petitioner has not produced certificate obtained from the Assistant Commissioner to prove payment of the Advance Tax with respect to the newly launched scheme and the details regarding the scheme was not informed to the Assistant Commissioner, enabling verification regarding correctness of the tickets transported. It is further alleged that the Advance Tax already remitted is for the old scheme which was discontinued with effect from 18/08/2010, and the said payment could not be considered as remittance for the newly introduced draws. Yet another allegation is that, on verification of the lottery tickets it was revealed that the draws will be conducted on 30/08/2010 and on 31/08/2010, which is Onam and Ramzan festival seasons in Kerala, and therefore the draws are to be treated as Bumper draws, as defined under S.2(c) of the Taxation Act, which will attract payment of Advance Tax at the rate of Rs.17 lakhs per draw, and that remittance of such amount was not made. It is alleged that the transport was without proof regarding payment of tax and therefore liable for detention under S.30(1). The petitioner was requested to file objections if any against the proposal for seizure of the goods and the vehicle, to be produced before the 5th respondent under S.30(1) & (2) of the Taxation Act. The objections in this regard was requested to be filed within 3 hours and an opportunity of hearing was afforded within that time. In the copy of Ext. P11 which was served on t