IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2009 / 13TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3073 of 2009(N) -------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- M/S.ACME FURNITURE & INTERIORS, A DIVISION OF ACME PROJECTS & DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT.LTD.MARY TOWER, N.H.47,UNIVERSITY JN., KOCHI-33, REP. BY K.M.FIROZ KHAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SRI.MAHESH V.MENON SMT.R.ARYA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER(WC AND LT), ERNAKULAM. 2. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.VI, DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES ERNAKULAM. 3. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.VIII, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 3073 OF 2009 N -------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd February, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is visited with an order of penalty under Section 67 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. The proviso declares that order of penalty shall be passed within a period of one year from the date on which the offence is detected. This is subject, however, to the provision contained in the proviso that the period of one year can be extended by the Deputy Commissioner. Learned Government Pleader points out that such sanction was given. Of course, learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that it should be communicated to the petitioner. I feel that these are all matters which the petitioner can raise in an Appeal. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of relegating the petitioner to prefer Appeal against the order of penalty. Sd/= kbk. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE // True Copy // PS to Judge