IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2009 / 13TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 1500 of 2007(C) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- S.NATARAJAN, GENERAL MERCHANT, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS.MR.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR MR.V.K.SHAMUSUDHEEN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. SALES TAX OFFICER, MANNARKKAD. 2. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.I, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. 3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), TALUK OFFICE, MANNARKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.K.P.PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.1500/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S. 45A OF THE KGST ACT ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2001-02 DTD. 25.6.02. P2:- DO. DO. DTD. 7.11.02 FOR THE YEAR 2002-03. P3:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP. NO.19402/02 DTD. 29.8.02. P4:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP. NO.37545/02 DTD. 20.12.02. P5:- COPY OF THE STATEMENT CONNECTED IN EXT.P4 JUDGMENT. P6:- COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2001-02 DTD. 30.11.06. P7:- DO. DO FOR THE YEAR 02-03 DTD. 11.12.06. P8:- COPY OF THE LETER GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DC, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ST. COMPLEX, PALAKKAD , DTD. 22.3.2000. P9:- COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE LETTER BY THE ADDRESSEE. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.1500 OF 2007 ------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of October, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner is mainly aggrieved by Exts.P6 and P7 orders of assessment in relation to the assessment years 2001-02, 2002- 03. 2. Facts of the case are that, by Exts.P1 and P2 notices penalty proceedings for the aforesaid assessment years were initiated against the petitioner. At that stage petitioner filed two Original Petitions before this court as O.P.Nos.19402/02 and 37545/02. 3. In so far as O.P.No.19402/02 is concerned, his grievance was regarding non-supply of documents which were relied on against him. That O.P was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment with directions to redress the aforesaid grievance. 4. In so far as O.P.No.37545/02 is concerned, that Original Petition was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment. In the writ petition, the complaint was that although the petitioner was a WP(c).No1500/07 2 registered dealer, he did not indulge in transportation of goods as mentioned in Exts.P1 and P2 and that certain other persons were doing it misusing his name. Dealing with this complaint this court directed that a detailed enquiry shall be conducted and a report shall be filed before this court. Accordingly, an enquiry was initiated and Ext.P5 is a preliminary report that was filed. The report disclosed that the enquiry has not been concluded by the authorities concerned. Petitioner's present complaint is that while the enquiry as proposed in Ext.P4 judgment remains inconclusive, assessment for the subsequent years were completed by Exts.P6 and P7. It was thereupon that the writ petition was filed and at the stage of admission by order dated 12.1.2007 this court passed an order of interim stay of recovery pursuant to Exts.P6 and P7. 5. As already stated the main complaint of the petitioner is that he has not indulged in any transactions as alleged in Exts.P1 and P2 notices and so long as the enquiry ordered in Ext.P4 remains inconclusive, the respondents could not have completed the assessment as per Exts.P6 and P7. 6. Having heard the counsel for the Petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader and having regard to the facts as WP(c).No1500/07 3 noticed above, I am inclined to think that the petitioner is justified in his submission that Exts.P6 and P7 are premature. In my view so long as the enquiry remains inconclusive the respondents could not have completed the assessment, particularly when the petitioner is disputing even the very allegation that he had indulging in the transactions. Having regard to the above, I am inclined to direct the respondents to keep in abeyance further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P6 and P7 until the enquiry ordered in Ext.P4 judgment is completed. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P6 and P6 till the enquiry initiated following Ext.P4 judgment in O.P.No.37545/02 is completed. It is clarified that it will be open to the petitioner to pursue the matter, once the proceedings are finalised as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No1500/07 4