IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2010 / 22ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19998 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ANWARMON P.A., PUTHENPARAMBIL (H), KANDANTHARA, ALLAPRA, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT: --------------- INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.1, MATTANCHERY, AT ALUVA MINI CIVIL STATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM DIST - 683 101. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 19998 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 13th July , 2010 J U D G M E N T The Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash Exhibits P4 to P8 penalty orders and Exts. P9 to P13 demand notices issued by the respondent, without returning the originals or serving copies of the documents seized from the petitioner on 14.12.2009, inspite of filing Ext.P2 request dated 03.06.2010. The petitioner has got a case that Exts.P4 to P8 orders, though dated 29.05.2010, had been despatched only after receipt of Ext.P2 request and as such, it was not correct or proper for the respondent to have passed the above orders without returning or serving copies of the documents seized. Reliance is also placed on the decision reported by this Court in B.T. Mammoo vs. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) Sales Tax Office, Special Circle, Kannur (1998) 6 KTR 466 (Ker.). 2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, on instruction, submits that the course and conduct being pursued by the petitioner cannot but be deprecated for the fact that several notices were issued to the petitioner directing to produce the books of accounts, which however was not responded by the petitioner at any point of time . After the inspection and seizure W.P.(C) No. 19998 OF 2010 2 of the documents on 14.12.2009, the first notice issued to the petitioner to produce the document was accepted by the petitioner, who did not choose to produce the same . Thereafter another notice was issued on 08.02.2010 requiring to produce the documents , but the said notice was caused to be returned by the petitioner as 'unclaimed'. Thereafter, the notice under Section 67(1) of the KVAT Act seeking to impose penalty was issued and this in turn was served on 17.05.2010. All the proceedings were finalised in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, finally leading to Exts. P4 to P8 orders dated 29.05.2010 imposing penalty, despatched to the petitioner well on time . It is only on coming to know about the adverse circumstances, that the petitioner chose to file Ext. P2 request dated 03.06.2010, seeking to serve copies or to return the originals of the documents so as to enable the petitioner to file objection. The learned Government Pleader submits that there was no such request after the seizure effected on 14.12.2009 till 03.06.2010 and that absolutely no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner in this regard. 3. This Court finds that retention of the documents pursuant to the search and seizure effected on 14.12.2009 cannot be W.P.(C) No. 19998 OF 2010 3 deprecated for the fact that the departmental authorities are very much entitled to have the custody of the documents for the period as provided under the relevant provisions of law, and that the proceedings have been issued and finalised well within that time. 4. The only question to be considered is whether Ext.P2 request sent by the petitioner ought to have been considered and accepted by the respondent. The fact remains that several notices were issued to the petitioner, who did not pay any heed to it. Even one of the notices sent to him was caused to be returned as 'unclaimed'. There is absolutely no explanation from the petitioner. The only reason stated with regard to the notice issued under Section 67(1) of the Act is that the said notice was served to the brother of the petitioner, on 17.05.2010 and that alternate arrangements could not be made on time and it was in the said circumstance that Ext.P2 request was submitted on 03.06.2010. The explanation from the petitioner does not appear to be palatable to this Court. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned orders, it is for the petitioner to challenge the same by availing the statutory remedy. However, so as to facilitate further proceedings, the respondent is directed to consider Ext.P2 and to return the original of the documents seized on W.P.(C) No. 19998 OF 2010 4 14.12.2009 to the petitioner, after retaining the copies, at the earliest , at any rate within ten days. The rights and liberties of the petitioner to challenge the impugned orders is left open. The period of pendency of the Writ Petition before this Court shall be duly reckoned by the appellate authority while computation of the period of limitation. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk