IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2009 / 5TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24830 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.COCHIN GLASS HOUSE, VAZHAKKALA, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-30, REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, K.R.SHAJAN JOSEPH. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON ABRAHAM SRI.S.GOPINATHAN SRI.NELSON ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.VIII, DEPART OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, GOVT,.OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY FINANCE SECRETARY, SECRETRIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 24830 OF 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext.P11, P15, P17 and P19 ex-parte orders stating that, absolutely no notice whatsoever was issued before finalization of said proceedings. The prayer is to direct the first respondent to consider Ext.P9 petition and to pass fresh orders on merits. 2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents brought to the notice of this Court that, the submissions and averments raised by the petitioner do not keep the right track of truth. Specific reference is also made to Ext.P11 (at running page 147 of the Writ Petition) where the issuance of the notice/replies/letters/requests submitted and the sequence of events have been described in detail; which is extracted below. “The above notice was served on the dealer on 17.03.2009. On 23.03.2009, the dealer filed two letters, one seeking return of the books of accounts submitted in the office as well as copies of the recovered records at the time of inspection and the other letter requesting further time of one month to file objection to the proposal. Accordingly photocopies of the entire records seized were taken and the same along with the books of accounts were handed over to the dealer on 08.05.2009. On 18.05.2009, Sri.Shajan Joseph, partner appeared before this office and informed that the detailed reply to the notice would be submitted WPC NO.24830/2009 2 within two days. However, one week's further time was allowed to file the reply if any, and he was intimated about this at that time. Though the partner had informed that the reply would be filed within two days, and further time of one week was allowed, they have not filed any reply or objection to the proposal till date. Ample time as requested by the dealer has thus given. Since the dealer has not turned up to file any reply or objections to the proposal it has to be presumed that they have nothing to offer in this regard”. 3. From the above, it is very much revealed that the case moulded by the petitioner in the Writ Petition, alleging non issuance of any notice and lack of opportunity of hearing does not appear to be prima facie correct or sustainable. That apart, the impugned orders are also very much appealable. 4. In the above circumstance, interference is declined without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy. However, so as to enable the petitioner to pursue such statutory remedy, this Court finds it just and proper to give some breathing time. Accordingly, it is made clear that, no coercive steps shall be taken pursuant to the impugned orders, for a period of one month. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc