IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7021 of 2010(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SURESH, PROPRIETOR, SURESH INDUSTRIES, PUTHENPURACKAL, PALLICKAL EAST, THEKKEKKARA PO, MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SRI.GEORGE RAJU SMT.SURYA SASI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT IN THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, INVESTIGATIOIN BRANCH, OFFICE OF THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SALES TAX, ALAPPUZHA. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ................................................... WP (C) NO. 7021 OF 2010 ............................................... Dated this the 4th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Exhibit P5, P6 and P7 orders imposing penalty upon the petitioner, passed by the 2nd respondent and also consequential demand notices as borne by Exhibits P5 (a), P6 (a), and P7 (a). The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner did not get an effective opportunity to contest the matter by producing the relevant books of account and the main prayer is for an opportunity to produce the books of account and to cause the matter to be reconsidered in accordance with law. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. It is very much obvious from the impugned proceedings that the petitioner was served with a notice dated 01-04-2009 and the impugned assessment orders were passed on 12-06-2009. Admittedly there is no case for the petitioner, that notice was not served upon him. WP (C) NO. 7021 OF 2009 2 There is also no explanation in the writ petition as to the delay in approaching this Court, despite passing of the order on 12-06-2009. However, this need not bar the way of the petitioner in pursuing the appellate remedy as contemplated under the statute, more so, when the petitioner is at liberty to pursue such exercise by filing necessary petition to condone the delay, offering satisfactory explanation, if any. 4. In the above facts and circumstances, interference is not warranted in this writ petition. However, the rights and liberties of the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy by filing appeal, along with such other incidental proceedings as necessary, is here by reserved. If the petitioner files the statutory appeal as above, along with necessary application to condone delay in filing the same and such other interlocutory applications for any incidental relief within two weeks, they shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be WP (C) NO. 7021 OF 2009 3 passed by the appellate authority, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of one month from the date of filing such proceedings Writ petition is disposed as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. rkc