IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 13605 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.KAIRALI STEELS & ALLOYS (P) LTD, KANJIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, P.T.AYSHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.SRIKUMAR ADV. SRI.K.J.CHERRY BABU ADV. SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN ADV. SRI.P.R.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.1, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INT), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER (ASSMT), SPECIAL CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES,PALAKKAD. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR. VINOD CHANDRAN, SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER (TAXES) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 13605 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 26th May, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exts. P1 and P2 notices issued by the first respondent, proposing the extent of the liability to be satisfied by the petitioner with respect to the offences come across apart from the tax liability. Obviously, Exts. P1 and P2 are only notices and the petitioner has filed Exts. P9 and P10 statements of objection in detail. Even though Exts.P1 and P2 are stated as notices, according to the petitioner, the mind of the authorities concerned is very well reflected from the terms used in Ext.P13 notice dated 25.04.2009 issued to the petitioner, i.e., after the date of receipt of the objections submitted by the petitioner to Exts. P1 and P2 notices, asking him to file compounding application and to remit tax and compounding fee, lest it should invite adverse consequences. Referring to the contents of Ext. P13, Mr.K. Srikumar, the W.P.(C) No. 13605 OF 2009 2 learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the concerned authority has already taken a decision to proceed against the petitioner as proposed and that this being the position, there is absolutely no meaning in waiting for the course of events, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this Writ Petition. 2. Mr. Vinod Chandran, the learned Special Government Pleader(Taxes) submits that the position conveyed to the petitioner vide Ext. P13 was only with regard to his right to avail the compounding facility, if he so desired. It is also pointed out that all the objections raised by the petitioner with regard to the issue, in response to Exts. P1 and P2 notices, will definitely be considered by the concerned authority. Considering the above facts and figures, this Court does not propose to go into the merits of the case for the time being. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Exts. P9 and P10 statements of objection filed by the petitioner, also in the light of Exts. P6 to P8 and such other materials sought to be produced by the petitioner. Final W.P.(C) No. 13605 OF 2009 3 orders shall be passed only after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to substantiate his case. It is also made clear that while finalising the matter, the first respondent will consider the specific opportunity pleaded by the petitioner to substantiate his case even by examining the persons concerned or by adducing such other evidence as permissible under law. Such decision shall be taken untrammeled by any of the observations contained in Ext. P13 with regard to compounding of offence as conveyed to the petitioner. The orders shall be properly communicated to the petitioner so as to enable him to pursue his remedy, if aggrieved. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk