IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 16TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 22622 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- T.L.GURUSWAMY, PROPRIETOR, KERALA STORES, CHEMMANNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM SRI.R.MAHESH R. KOTTAPPURAM RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, BODIMETTU, IDUKKI. 2. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, IDUKKI, AT KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, IDUKKI AT KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, (ENQUIRY), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, IDUKKI AT KATTAPPANA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.22622 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Proceedings under Sections 47(2) and 69(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) was initiated against the petitioner, with respect to interstate transport of provision items effected not accompanied by proper documents as required under Section 46(3) of the Act. The petitioner had deposited the amount of security demanded under the notice issued under Section 47(2). He had also paid penalty imposed under Section 69(1). But the proceedings were challenged before this court, which culminated in Ext.P8 judgment in W.A.No.408/2010. Finding that the penalty under Section 69(1) was imposed without issuing notice to the petitioner as required under the statute, the order was quashed. But it was made clear that the authorities can issue fresh notice and proceed with in accordance with law, after affording opportunity W.P.(C).22622/10-C -2- to the petitioner. With respect to proceedings initiated under Section 47(2), the Division Bench observed that, it is only at notice stage and hence need not be interfered with. The 4th respondent after conducting enquiry as contemplated under Section 47(2) had now imposed penalty under Section 47(6), through Ext.P9 order. The petitioner is challenging that order on the ground that simultaneous proceedings initiated under Sections 47 and 69 is unsustainable. It is also contended that the impugned order is issued in violation of the directions contained in Ext.P8 judgment. 2. It is evident that the petitioner had raised challenge against the proceedings initiated under Sections 47(2) and 69(1) in the previous round of litigation. The order imposing penalty issued under Section 69(1) was quashed by this court reserving liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh. This court had not restrained the enquiry now finalised under Section 47(6), in Ext.P8 judgment. 3. Against Ext.P9 order issued under Section 47(6), W.P.(C).22622/10-C -3- the petitioner can avail the effective statutory remedy available by way of appeal. Therefore I am not inclined to consider correctness of Ext.P9 on its merits in this writ petition. It is submitted by learned Government Pleader that fresh proceedings under Section 69(1) is in contemplation. 4. Under the above circumstances the writ petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge Ext.P9 before the appropriate appellate authority. 5. It is made clear that if the petitioner files appeal against Ext.P9 along with petition seeking condonation of delay, the appellate authority shall take note of the fact that the petitioner was agitating the matter before this court in this writ petition, while deciding the question of condonation of delay. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb