IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 21ST APRIL 2009 / 1ST VAISAKHA 1931 WA.No. 951 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.10768/2009 Dated 02/04/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS ------------------------- 1. T.T.SHIJOY, S/O.THARUKUTTY, THOLATH HOUSE, DEVI INTERNATIONAL, DOOR NO.8/213, MANNARAPARAMBU P.O., CHALISSERY, PALAKKAD. 2. BINDHU SHIJOY, W/O.SHIJOY, THOLATH HOUSE, MANNARAPARAMBU P.O., CHALISSERY, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.M.UNNIKRISHNA MENON SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETAY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (III), COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MS. BINDHU THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN & ANTONY DOMINIC, JJ. --------------------------------------------- W.A. No.951 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated: APRIL 21, 2009 JUDGMENT Siri Jagan, J. The appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition. In the writ petition the petitioner challenged Exts.P1 and P2 notices issued by the 3rd respondent under sec.67 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act directing the petitioner to file objections, if any, to the proposal to impose penalty on the petitioner for evasion of tax. Noting that Exts.P1 and P2 are only notices inviting objections from the petitioner, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with the following judgment:- “Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. Petitioners challenge Exts.P1 and P2 and seek a declaration that the Sales Tax Authorities have no power to issue an order under Section 26 of the KVAT Act without complying with the legal provisions. Exts.P1 and P2 are Notices issued under Section 67 of the KVAT Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the Officer has made up his mind and transactions beyond the purview of the Act are W.A. No.951 of 2009 2 projected in the Notices. Learned Government Pleader submits that it is only a proposal. I feel that this is a case where the petitioners can file objections against Exts.P1 and P2. They can raise all objections before the Officer who will be duty bound to consider the same with an open mind and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of relegating the petitioners to prefer their objections to Exts.P1 and P2 before the Officer.” 2. Exts.P1 and P2 being only notices inviting objections, we are of opinion that the learned Single Judge rightly relegated the petitioner to file objections before the 3rd respondent taking all contentions available to him, which objections have to be considered by the 3rd respondent before passing final orders in the matter. Accordingly the writ appeal is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-