IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2009 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34690 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- R.JAYAKUMAR, PROPRIETOR J.K.AGENCIES, PATHIRAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR SRI.S.VINODKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER SQUAD NO.1 COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE AGRL, INCOME TAX AND COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: shg/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 34690 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. On the basis of a shop inspection conducted by the 1st respondent at the head office of the petitioner at Pathirappally and branches at Alappuzha and Cherthala, and also at the two godowns attached to each branches, Ext.P4 notice proposing imposition of penalty under Section 67 (1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) was issued. It is mentioned in Ext.P4 that subsequent to the inspection, the books of accounts of the petitioner were called for and from documents produced such as Day Book, Purchase Register, and Sales Register etc. it is revealed that the petitioner is not keeping registers and stock inventory with respect to transactions with its branches and therefore notice was issued intimating proposal for imposition of penalty alleging non-keeping of proper books of accounts as required under the statute. The petitioner had filed Exts.P5 & P7 replies to the proposal notice stating W.P.(C)No. 34690 of 2009 -2- that separate stock position of the head office and branches are easily ascertainable from the consolidated stock inventory and purchase register and sales register produced. Further the petitioner sought three months time to prepare separate stock inventory of head office and branches, based on the documents already produced. It is contented that by virtue of Rule 58 of the KVAT Rules, 2005, maintenance of separate accounts for branches is not mandatory. Grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of specific request under Ext.P5 to grant time for production of branch wise stock statements, the 1st respondent is taking hasty steps to finalise penalty proceedings. Therefore the writ petition is filed inter alia seeking direction to the 1st respondent to grant three months time from 23.11.2009 to prepare and produce branch wise stock statement in reply to the penalty proposal issued. 2. Heard, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. It is submitted that the inspection was conducted on 12.08.2009 and the proposal notice for W.P.(C)No. 34690 of 2009 -3- imposing penalty was issued on 24.10.2009. Thereafter repeated notices were issued on three occasions to the petitioner to produce documents. It is further contented that from the request made by the petitioner it is evident that the petitioner is intending to prepare stock statement in relation to the branches and to produce the same. Therefore it is apprehended that the request for time is only for preparing fresh accounts in order to escape from the laches which are pointed out with respect to non-keeping of books of accounts. On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the registers pertaining to the stock position with respect to the branches has already been produced before the authority and the petitioner is seeking time only for production of distinctive stock inventory and registers with respect to the branches. 3. Having considered facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that merit of the matter need not be considered at this stage in this writ petition. It is evident that the petitioner has already been given ample W.P.(C)No. 34690 of 2009 -4- opportunity to contest the matter on the basis of Ext.P4 notice. However denial of a further opportunity on the basis of his request for production of whatever documents intended by the petitioner, will end in denial of natural justice. Therefore I am of the opinion that a reasonable time can be granted before finalisation of the proceedings for enabling the petitioner to produce whatever documents he would like to submit. 4. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to afford a further opportunity to the petitioner for producing documents, within three weeks from today. The 1st respondent is directed to finalise the proceedings after adverting to any further records or documents if produced by the petitioner, within the above stipulated time. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE shg/