IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2008 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 31830 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.R.SANIJU, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN,AGED 25 YEARS,PROPRIETOR, KIRAN STEEL FURNITURE VADAYATTUKOTTAH, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, SQUAD NO.1,KOLLAM. 3. THE INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES (INTELLIGENCE),KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 31830 OF 2008 L -------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd November, 2008 JUDGMENT Case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: Petitioner started a furniture shop as a self-employment, by name “Kiran Steel Furniture” and it has a Branch also later. Under Exts.P1 and P2, documents of the petitioner came to be taken away by the second respondent, Intelligence Officer. The said Officer asked the petitioner by Ext.P3 to produce Books of Accounts. Immediately, the petitioner wrote Ext.P4 letter to the third respondent stating that the primary records including purchase and sales bills are with the second respondent and requesting to give back those records or photo copies of the same. Again, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 letter to the second respondent seeking photo copies of the records. Ext.P7 is a notice issued under Section 67(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. Petitioner again submitted Ext.P8. Thereafter, Ext.P9 order was passed imposing penalty. WPC.31830/08 L 2 Petitioner relies on the decision of this Court in A.A. Rajananda Pai v. Intelligence Officer, Squad II ((1994) 2 KTR 148) wherein this Court had taken the view that retention of documents beyond thirty days or sixty days with the permission of the higher authority, cannot be justified. Ext.P9 is challenged. A direction is sought to give back the records and to give three months' time to furnish the Books of Accounts on the basis of the seized documents. 2. As far as the challenge to Ext.P9 is concerned, as correctly pointed out, the petitioner has a right of Appeal and I relegate the petitioner to pursue the remedy available under law. As far as the retention of the documents is concerned, learned Government Pleader submits that the documents which were seized from the petitioner are purchase bills and sales bills. No Books of Accounts were seized from the petitioner. He also submits that the purport of this Writ Petition is to see that when the documents are received back, the Books of Accounts are produced by concocting the Account Books on the strength of WPC.31830/08 L 3 the purchase bills and sales bills. He submits that the Books of Accounts are to be maintained promptly and apparently the petitioner has not done that, and that is the purport of the prayers in the Writ Petition. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, there will be a direction to the second respondent to give back the documents which have been seized from the petitioner under Exts.P1 and P2 Receipts, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. It is for the petitioner to make available the Books of Accounts with the documents available, failing which it is open to the authority to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. If the petitioner prefers Appeal within three weeks from today, the Appeal will be treated as filed within time and it will be decided on merits. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/= kbk. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE // True Copy // PS to Judge