IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 18722 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.MET LIFE INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, BRIGADE SESHAMAHAL, 5, VANI VILAS ROAD, BASAVANGUDI, BANGALORE - 560 004 REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR LEGAL ANIL P.M. BY ADV. SMT.S.K.DEVI SRI.SHANMUGHAM D. JAYAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB)-1, OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER Mr.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 18722 OF 2008 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Ext.P1 order passed by the first respondent imposing the penalty under Section 45 (A) of the KGST Act in respect of the assessment year 2004-05 is subjected to challenge in the present writ petition. The case of the petitioner is that the very basis for imposing the liability as discernible from Ext.P1 is the reliance placed on Section 7 (7B) of the Act as well as Rule 22 (A) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the above provisions of law have already been struck down by this Court as per judgment in Siemens Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala in 2002 (3) KLT 443. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that under similar circumstances, when the departmental authorities imposed penalty without serving any notice to the contractors, it was set aside by this Court in WP(C) No. 12084/2003 and necessary directions were given to have reassessment as specified. WPC NO.18722/2008 2 3. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that there is a remedy by way of appeal to the petitioner. True, the petitioner is having an appellate remedy to challenge Ext.P1 proceedings before the concerned appellate authority. But the point of dispute is not with regard to the facts and figures but with regard to reliance placed on Section 7 (7B) and Rule 22 (A). Since the above provisions of law admittedly been struck down, the matter has to be re-considered by the original authority who imposed the penalty. 4. Learned Government Pleader submits that unlike in the other case (WP(C) 12084/2003), the petitioner herein has not supplied the address of the concerned contractors for serving notice to them, which statement is vehemently opposed from the part of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the particulars of the said contractors are very much known to the Department, since the petitioner has already entrusted a true copy of the Agreement executed in connection with the concerned contracts. The learned counsel submits that the correct names and addresses of the contractors concerned would be made available to the first respondent again, within two weeks. In the said circumstances, Ext.P1 order is set aside and the first respondent is directed to reconsider the matter after giving further opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also with notice to the concerned contractors. The WPC NO.18722/2008 3 proceedings in this regard shall be finalised as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, till such orders are passed, no further coercive steps shall be pursued against the petitioner under any circumstance. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) dnc