IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 8920 of 2005(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ANIL KUMAR, M/S. ARAVIND MARKETING, KAVANAD, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SMT.T.S.MAYA SMT.K.REENA RESPONDENTS: ------------- SALES TAX OFFICER (ADDITIONAL II) KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY G.P. SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: NOTICE OF RESPONDENT U/S.19 OF THE KGST ACT DT.24.5.2003. P2: NOTICE OF RESPONDENT U/S.45A OF KGST ACT DT.24.5.2003. P3: REPLY OF PETITIONER TO EXT.P1 NOTICE. P4: REPLY OF PETITIONER TO EXT.P2 NOTICE. P5&P5(a): ORDER OF REPSONDENT DT.19.6.2003. P6&P6(a): ORDER OF RESPONDENT DT.23.6.2003. P7: REVISION ORDER OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLLAM DT.17.9.2003. P8: APPELLATE ORDER OF APPELLATE ASST. COMMISSIONER KOLLAM DT.17.10.2003. P9: NOTICE OF RESPONDENT DT.15.12.2004. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.8920 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Ext.P9 notice issued by the Assessing Officer directing the petitioner to furnish confirmation letters from the suppliers to the effect that petitioner has not made the purchases referred to in the order issued under Section 19 of the KGST Act which was under challenge in appeal and revision. According to counsel for the petitioner, petitioner has denied the purchases covered by 8 invoices referred to in items 1 to 7 of page 2 of the assessment order issued under Section 19 of the Act. In the normal course it is for the department to trace the supplier or the transporter and identify the transactions as relating to the petitioner to make addition in petitioner's assessment. However, in this case it is conceded that petitioner had accounted purchases from the very same suppliers and therefore, petitioner should have no difficulty to get confirmation letters from the suppliers that petitioner has not made the purchases, if really petitioner has not made such purchases. In any case there is no scope for entertaining challenge against Ext.P9 notice. The W.P. is accordingly closed leaving freedom to the petitioner to raise objection 2 before the Assessing Officer and produce confirmation letters, if petitioner is able to produce the same. If confirmation letters are not produced, the officer can conduct enquiry about details of accounted purchase made by the petitioner, proof of payments made etc. and make inferences reasonably possible and make additions. The Assessing Officer is directed to consider petitioner's objections and pass orders within three months from date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms