IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2008 / 4TH MAGHA 1929 W.P.(C).No. 1937 of 2008(E) PETITIONER: 1. JOE I.MANGALY, MANAGING DIRECTOR, MANGALY INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., B.O.C. BYE-PASS ROAD, PATTIKKARA, PALAKKAD-14. 2. JOE I.MANGALY, MANAGING PARTNER, MANGALY TIMBERS, B.O.C. BYE-PASS ROAD, PATTIKKARA, PALAKKAD-14. 3. JOE I.MANGALY, MANAGING PARTNER, MANGALY TIMBER AND FURNITURE WORKS, B.O.C. BYE-PASS ROAD, PATTIKKARA, PALAKKAD-14. BY ADV. SRI.P.J.MATHEW RESPONDENTS: 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.01.2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.( C) No. 1937 OF 2008 - E = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayer sought for in this writ petition is to direct the respondents to summon the documents sought for by the petitioners in Exts. P3 to P8 and to issue copies of the same to the petitioners. 2. Petitioners submit that when penalty proceedings were pending before the original authorities, they had applied for production of certain documents and also to summon witnesses. This has not been allowed. But, however, penalty proceedings were finalised. It is submitted that against these orders levying penalty, petitioners have filed revisions which are pending consideration of respondents 2, 3 and 4. Since the original authority did not allow the request of the petitioner to summon the documents and also witnesses, petitioners repeated their request before the revisional authorities, namely, respondents 2,3 and 4 by submitting Exts. P3, W.P.(C) No.1937/08 - 2 - P4, P5 and P6 to P8 which are its reminders. It is submitted that without passing orders thereon, the revisional authorities are proceeding to finalise the proceedings. 3. I have heard the learned Govt. Pleader also. The instruction given to the learned Govt. Pleader is that, based on requirements and the situation, the request made by the petitioner will be considered at the time when the revision petitions are taken up for consideration. 4. However, that by itself may not meet the requirement of the petitioners. Unless the request made by the petitioners is considered prior to the consideration of the revision petitions, then and then alone, can the petitioners make use of the documents or the evidence that is adduced. The fact that there is an enabling provision in Section 53 of the KGST Act is also not in dispute. If that be so, the request made by the petitioners is to be considered on merit. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition directing that respondents 2, 3 and 4 shall take up and consider Exts. P3, P4 and P5 request made by the petitioners before the revision petitions filed by them are taken up for consideration. Orders on Exts. P3 to P5 shall be passed and communicated to the petitioners as W.P.(C) No.1937/08 - 3 - expeditiously as possible, at any rate within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-