IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2009 / 3RD MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1624 of 2009(R) -------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SRI. ABDUL NAZAR K, M/S N.M. STEELS & CEMENTS, 8/331, ALUMTHARA, VENNAKODE, MUKKAM PANCHAYATH, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.II, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, 4TH CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 1624 OF 2009 R -------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd January, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P5 which is a notice under Section 67(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act and seeks a direction to the first respondent to refrain from imposing any penalty on him pursuant to Ext.P5. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner was dealing in steel and cement. There was an inspection on 12.12.2007. Thereafter, the first respondent issued summons requiring the petitioner to produce Books of Accounts for the years 2006 - 2007 and 2007 - 2008 vide Ext.P1. Petitioner submitted reply stating that all the records have been seized. By Ext.P2, petitioner sought time for production of records after returning the seized documents. Petitioner refers to Amnesty Scheme. Petitioner submitted Exts.P3 and P4. Thereafter, the petitioner is faced with Ext.P5 notice proposing to impose penalty under Section 67(1) of the WPC.1624/09 R 2 Act. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. The principal contention taken is that more than one year has elapsed from the date of inspection held on 12.12.2007, and without the records sought for being given, petitioner will not be in a position to respond to the penalty notice. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the notice, reference is made to recoveries being taken as above, nearly more than Rs.11,83,00,000/= and the details are not forthcoming. Per contra, learned Government Pleader points out that the purport of the petition is to get back the documents so as to create an Account. He also drew my attention to Rule 63(7) of the Rules, to point out that the respondents are entitled to retain the documents. It is further pointed out that there is no limitation as the Deputy Commissioner has extended the time. 3. I feel that the Writ Petition can be disposed of permitting the petitioner to raise all the contentions before the WPC.1624/09 R 3 Officer. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of relegating the petitioner to raise all contentions against Ext.P5 notice. I leave it open to the petitioner to contend before the Officer that he should be given the documents or at least copies of the documents and that he should be permitted to verify the documents. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge