IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2011 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 9075 of 2011(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE CALICUT UNIVERSITY CO-OPERATIVE STORES LTD,M-24, P.O.CALICUT UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ABDUL KARIM K.M. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SMT.K.HYMAVATHY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER TIRURANGADI 676 306. 2. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES MALAPPURAM AT MANJERI 676 121. BY SR.G.P.SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C)No.9075 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P3 order of penalty is challenged in this writ petition, without resorting to the statutory remedy provided under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that, the penalty was imposed without considering the objections filed by the petitioner and without affording any opportunity of hearing. It is noticed that a proposal for imposing penalty was issued as per Ext.P1, with an allegation that the petitioner had failed to submit statutory audit report with respect to the year 2007-2008, within the time stipulated under Section 42 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. Since it amounts to an offence under Section 67(c), penalty was proposed to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. On receipt of Ext.P1, petitioner submitted reply stating that the departmental audit is in W.P.(C)No.9075 of 2011 -: 2 :- progress and the audit report will be finalised on or before 31.12.2008. Therefore, time of one month was sought for in order to comply with the requirements under Section 42. In Ext.P3 the reply was considered by the first respondent and it was rejected stating that the request could not be accepted since the due date for filing audit report was falling due on 31.10.2008 and that the petitioner had sufficient time of six months to submit the audited statement. Finding that there was miserable failure on the part of the petitioner, the penalty was imposed, reducing the quantum to a sum of Rs.5,000/-. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances as stated above, I do not find any special circumstance existing to entertain challenge raised against Ext.P3 in this writ petition, which is filed bye-passing the statutory remedy. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. However, rights if any available to the petitioner to invoke the statutory remedy is reserved. However, I W.P.(C)No.9075 of 2011 -: 3 :- make it clear that there is no findings arrived on the merits of the contentions raised against the impugned order. 5. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to rights if any available to the petitioner to invoke the statutory remedy against Ext.P3. 6. On the basis of an appeal made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents are directed to keep in abeyance recovery steps for a period of one month from today, in order to facilitate the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. Jvt