IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2011 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 9636 of 2011(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.T.KURIAKOSE, KUNNATH TRADERS, PERAYAM, CHEERANIKKARA, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB), OFFICE OF THE INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE), COMMERCIAL TAXES, NEW "C" BLOCK, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. 2. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, NEDUMANGAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 541. BY ADV.SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.9636 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T Exts.P4(a) and P4(b) notices are under challenge in this writ petition. Contention of the petitioner is that similar notices were issued earlier, as evidenced from Exts.P2(a) and P2(b), for which the petitioner had submitted detailed objections as evidenced from Ext.P3(a) and P3(b). It is the further case that inspite of specific request made through Exts.P3(a) and P3(b), copies of the relevant documents which is proposed to be relied on, has not been furnished to the petitioner. Further contention of the petitioner is that, the present notices, Exts.P4(a) and P4(b), were issued without taking note of the objections raised in Exts.P3(a) and P3(b). 2. I do not find any grounds to interfere with the notices impugned in this writ petition, since the authority concerned has not taken any final decision on the matter. However, I do not find any reasonable basis to apprehend 2 W.P.(C).No.9636 of 2011 that the proceedings will be finalised without taking note of the objections raised by the petitioner as evidenced from Exts.P3(a) and P3(b). It is also incumbent on the part of the respondents to furnish copies of documents if any, which is relied on, as an incriminating material, against the petitioner for the purpose of imposing penalty. 3. The petitioner will be at liberty to approach the 1st respondent seeking copies of any such documents or any information regarding such materials. The 1st respondent is directed to consider the objections if any raised against the proposal on its merits and also to afford reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate their contentions including an opportunity of personal hearing, before finalisation of the proceedings. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/