IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 32626 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DOMINIC JOSEPH, AGED 53, S/O.LATE N.V.AUGUSTINE, BATTERY HOUSE, VETTOOR BUILDING, ETTUMANOOR. BY ADVS. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD SRI.C.JOSEPH JOHNY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER SPECIAL CIRLE I, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS), KOLLAM. 4. M/S.EXIDE INDUSTRIES LTD., 44/3331, NEAR TVS, KALOOR NORTH, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-17. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: shg/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 32626 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P1 to P6 notices issued against him proposing for imposition of penalty under Section 67 (1) (b) as well as 25 (1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act). The penalty is proposed based on the allegation that the petitioner has not accounted purchases worth Rs.9,92,111.35, effected from M/s. Exide Industries and therefore the petitioner was not maintaining true and correct books of accounts. The above allegation is raised on the basis of details collected from the returns filed by M/s. Exide Industries Ltd. 2. According to the petitioner he is not a dealer of the 4th respondent M/s. Exide Industries Ltd. On the other hand he is only a sub dealer of a dealer to 4th respondent, at Kottayam. But it is stated that there are other dealers of the 4th respondent functioning in the same name and style W.P.(C)No. 32626 of 2009 -2- as “M/s. Battery House” and it so happened that TIN details of the petitioner was wrongly indicated by the 4th respondent against sales effected to other dealers functioning under the same name and style. On the receipt of Exts.P1 to P6 the petitioner had produced various documents obtained from the 4th respondent as evidenced from Exts.P7 to P11 in order to prove that the 4th respondent has not in fact effected such sales to the petitioner. But such sales were only made to the dealers of the 4th respondent who are functioning under the name M/s. Battery House. 3. Apprehension of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent may finalise the penalty proceedings as proposed without adverting to such documents and without affording him an opportunity to substantiate that the alleged purchases are not made by the petitioner. I do not find any basis for such an apprehension, since relevant documents has already been submitted to the 1st respondent. W.P.(C)No. 32626 of 2009 -3- 4. However, it is observed that before finalising proceedings under Section 67 (1) (b) or under Section 25 (1), the 1st respondent shall consider the objection raised by the petitioner with advertance to the documents produced in support. The petitioners shall also be given reasonable opportunity to substantiate such objections by producing any further documents or by examining any persons concerned. Writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE shg/