IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2011 / 16TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17035 of 2011(D) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M/S.SOUTHERN ISPAT AND ENERGY LTD., 19/629(1), 'SREYAS',NEAR YAKKARA SCHOOL BUS STOP, WEST YAKAARA,PALAKKAD-678 001,REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR E.SANKARA NARAYANA,AGED 65,S/O.E.THIPPIYYA SETTEE, 17/224,SHALEENAM,OPP.DEFENCE CANTEEN,VAZHAKADAVU, KARINGARIPALLI POST, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY SRI.ANIL GEORGE SRI.K.S.SUMEESH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, REP.BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER(ASSESSMENT), SPECIAL CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), SPECIAL CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.17035/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE FORM 221 RETURN SUBMITTED UNDER THE MVAT ACT, 2002 IN MAHARASHTRA . P2:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 25.4.2011. P3:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES (PAGE NO.17) OF THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE PETITIONER COMPANY. P4:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICTE ISSEUD BY THE STATUTORY AUDITORS DTD. 19.5.2011 WITH REGARD TO THE SALES AND SERVICES. P5: COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DTD. 20.5.2011. P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 31.5.2011 ALONG WITH THE NOTICE OF DEMAND. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 17035 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 7th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext. P5 penalty order. According to the petitioner, since the assessed transactions were at Maharashtra and the same was assessed to tax in Maharashtra, the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to pass Ext. P6 penalty order. The learned Government Pleader points out that these contentions were not proved before the assessing authority by producing books of accounts of the petitioner and that is why Ext. P6 happened to be passed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was not given an opportunity to produce the books of account. But, in Ext. P6 order in paragraph 2, it is stated thus: “The notice containing the above proposal was duly communicated to the assessee, inviting objections and also affording an opportunity for personal hearing on 5.5.2011. The notice duly served on the assessee on 28.4.2011. The assessee, on receipt of the notice sought an adjournment to file reply and for hearing to dated 20.5.2011 vide reference 2nd cited and the request was granted. Finally, they filed objections vide letter 3rd cited on 24.5.2011. The assessee was also heard on 24.5.2011.” That shows that the petitioner has been given sufficient opportunity to produce all documents. Admittedly, the petitioner has not produced the books of accounts for proving his contention. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain a challenge against Ext. P6 on the ground of want of jurisdiction. However, it is open to the petitioner to challenge Ext. P6 in an appeal as W.P(C) No. 17035 of 2011 -: 2 :- provided under the statute. Without prejudice to that right, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/