IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2010 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 16253 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.T.BIJU, MANJALY HOUSE, CHENGALLOOR P.O., PUDUKKAD (VIA), THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DALE P.KURIEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (I.B), OFFICE OF THE INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER (INT.), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR. 2. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (TAXES)(B) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 16253 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext.P1 'notice' issued under Section 67 (3) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. Many a ground has been raised in the Writ Petition to sustain the prayers. The petitioner has also sought for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to accept and verify Ext.P2 series books of account maintained by the petitioner. 2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the Writ Petition is not maintainable, as there cannot be any challenge with regard to the issuance of 'notice' under the relevant provisions of law. It is for the petitioner to approach the concerned authority by filing necessary objections and to satisfy the position. Reference is also made to the last paragraph of Ext.P1; whereby the petitioner is given 15 days' time to submit the objections as above, besides giving an 'opportunity of hearing', if so desired by fixing the date of hearing on 04.03.2010 at 11 a.m. The learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner did not avail the opportunity by filing any objection; nor has he chosen to be present before the authority on 04.03.2010 and has quite casually approached this Court nearly 2 ½ 2 WP(C) No. 16253/2010 months after the expiry of the time stipulated in Ext.P1. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not submit the statement of objections before the respondents because of some unforeseen circumstances and that the petitioner might be given an opportunity to file the same. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to file a statement of objections in response to Ext.P1 within a period of 'three weeks'; if the proceedings are still to be fridged; on which event, the same shall be considered and the matter shall be finalized by the 1st respondent in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, of course after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within two months thereafter. The petitioner is at liberty to produce whatever evidence he wants to adduce in support of the pleading. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc