IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6422 of 2010(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.B.ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED 45, S/O.LATE MR.K.K.BEERAN, PROPRIETOR, NATIONAL GRANITES, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, EDAYAR, MUPPATHADAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 110. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI CHIRAYATH SMT.JIJI M. VARKEY RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.V, OFFICE OF THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.V, MATTANCHERRY, AT MINI CIVIL STATION, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. AUTHORISED OFFICER, (REVENUE RECOVERY) INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERRY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 6422 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 1st March , 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P4 order passed by the second respondent whereby the penalty to the tune of Rs…4,51,848/- has been imposed under Section 67(b) of the KVAT Act in respect of the offence of failure to keep the Books of Accounts for the year 2007-08. The petitioner is more aggrieved of the recovery proceedings being pursued as borne by Ext.P5 demand notice invoking the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that even though Ext.P4 order is stated as passed on 17.07.2009, the same was served only much belatedly as borne by the endorsement shown at the bottom of the said order. Because of the pressing circumstances, particularly, having initiated steps W.P.(C) No. 6422 OF 2010 2 under the Revenue Recovery Act, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by filing the Writ Petition contending that no breathing time was given by the appellate authority. 4. After considering the facts and circumstances, particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner is very much having an effective alternate remedy against Ext.P4, no interference is warranted in this Writ Petition. However, since the said order is seen as passed on 17.07.2009 by the Commercial Tax Officer, VAT Office and served to the petitioner only much thereafter and Ext.P5 revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated ( which is dated 20.01.2010), this Court finds it fit and proper to provide some breathing time, so as to enable the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy available. Accordingly, interference is declined, relegating the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy. However, this Court directs that all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the contentions, legal as well as factual, before the competent W.P.(C) No. 6422 OF 2010 3 authority in this regard, as projected in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is disposed of P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk