IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 26TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 28518 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SRI.T.L.ANTO, PROPRIETOR, ANTO SANITATITIONS, AZHIKODAN STREET, KURIACHIRA, TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN SMT.G.DEEPA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.1, COMMERCIAL TAXES, TRICHUR - 680 001 2. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD N.III, COMMERCIAL TAXES, TRICHUR - 680 001 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES KERALA, PUBLIC BUILDING, VIKAS BHAVAN.P.O., TRIVANDRUM - 695 001 4. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.28518 of 2010-L ---------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of September, 2010. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is aggrieved by the non-issuance of photocopies of seized records. The business places of the petitioner was inspected by respondents 1 and 2 on 30.7.2010 and various records were seized after preparing shop inspection reports bearing Nos.150540 and 150649. Exts.P1 and P1(a) are the shop inspection reports and Exts.P2 and P2(a) are the receipts issued with respect to taking into custody of the records. It is the case of the petitioner that, inspite of various approaches the respondents 1 and 2 are not issuing copies of the seized records to the petitioner. According to him he could submit the books of accounts and participate in the enquiry, which is under contemplation for imposing penalty, only if photocopies of the seized records are given to him. Ext.P3 petition submitted in this regard on 2.9.2010, before the first respondent, was not allowed. Grievance of the petitioner is that the authorities are now proceeding with steps for finalizing penalty, without issuing copies of the records as requested. W.P(C) No.28518 of 2010-L 2 2. Petitioner points out provisions contained in Section 44 (6) of the KVAT Act and in Rule 63(7) of the KVAT Rules, which deals with seizure of records and keeping of the same by authorities concerned. It is contended that the non-issuance of copies is an arbitrary steps on the part of respondents 1 and 2, which is in violation of the above said provisions. 3. Having considered the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and take appropriate decision on Ext.P3, before proceeding with any steps for imposition of penalty. A decision in this regard shall be taken at the earliest possible and the petitioner shall be given a reasonable time for submitting objections against the proposals if any issued, thereafter. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab