IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2011 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 9622 of 2011(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ADALAT YADAV, PROPRIETOR, REKHA PAN HOUSE, DOOR NO.40/9199, DORAISWAMY IYER ROAD, CHIDAMBARAM CHAMBERS, KOCHI-682 035. BY ADV. SRI.S.SUDHISH KUMAR SRI.S.MOHAMMED FEBIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.VIII, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, GOVT.OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 016. 2. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 016. BY ADV.SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.9622 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T Pursuant to an inspection conducted at the business premise of the petitioner by the 1st respondent on 14.3.2011, he was issued with Exts.P5 and P6 notices proposing penalty under Sections 44(8) and 44(10) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act), alleging that the petitioner was keeping unauthorised stock in an undeclared godown. Through Ext.P7, the petitioner was required to produce books of accounts and other documents for verification. On receipt of Exts.P5 to P7 notices, the petitioner had submitted Exts.P8 and P9 objections. With respect to notice calling for production of books of accounts, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P10 request seeking time, on the ground that the accountant dealing with the matter is on leave. Apprehension of the petitioner is that, the respondents may finalise the proceedings without affording adequate opportunity to the petitioner to produce the books of 2 W.P.(C).No.9622 of 2011 accounts and also without giving effective opportunity to object the proposals. 2. I do not find any materials to presume that the authority concerned will finalise the penalty proceedings without affording any reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. It is evident that the petitioner had objected the proposal by filing Exts.P8 and P9. Going by the relevant provisions as well as principles of natural justice, it is obligatory on the part of the authorities concerned to afford adequate opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate the contentions, by producing books of accounts and other documents in support of such contentions. It is also mandatory on the part of the respondents to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, before finalising the proceedings. 3. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to proceed with further steps, after affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner as stated above. It is made clear that the 3 W.P.(C).No.9622 of 2011 petitioner should co-operate with the respondents in finalising the proceedings by producing the necessary records and documents without any further delay. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/