IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5912 of 2011(L) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- K.V.SEBASTIAN, S/O.VARGHESE, KUNNUMPURATH HOUSE, 1/1027 PADAMUGHAL, THANAPADAM, KAKKANAD P.O., (TRA-23), ERNAKULAM-682030. BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB), OFFICE OF THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, (INTELLIGENCE), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM, PIN-691001. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690101. 3. STANLEY SEBASTIAN, S/O.K.V.SEBASTIAN, KUNNUMPURATH HOUSE, KALLIMEL P.O., MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690570. R1 & R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/02/2011, ALONG WITH WPC. NO.6054/2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).Nos.5912 & 6054 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioners in both these cases are challenging actions initiated by the first respondent proposing imposition of penalty, under section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (KGST Act) in W.P.(C)No.5912/2011 and under section 67(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act) in W.P.(C)No.6054/2011. 2. In W.P.(C)No.5912/2011, Exts.P3 and P4 are the proposal notices issued, to which the petitioners had already submitted detailed reply as evidenced from Exts.P12 and P13. So also, in W.P.(C)No.6054/2011, Exts.P3 to P7 are the notices proposing penalty to which the petitioner therein had submitted a detailed reply as evidenced from Exts.P8 to P12. 3. Even though various contentions are raised challenging sustainability of the actions proposed, I am of the view that it is not proper and justified on the part of this Court to interdict with the proceedings at this stage, since 2 W.P.(C).Nos.5912 & 6054 of 2011 the proceedings are only at the stage of proposal and since the petitioners have already submitted detailed objections. It is for the first respondent to consider such objections on the merits and to take a decision. It will be highly premature for this Court to enter upon any findings regarding the merits of such objections. Ofcourse, the petitioners are also raising some contentions questioning the jurisdiction vested on the authority. But I am of the view that the petitioners can be given liberty to take up such contentions before the first respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, in the objections filed, the petitioners have made specific requests for furnishing copies of certain records, which are materials relied on for proposing the penalty against the petitioners. Needless to say that the first respondent should consider such request and take appropriate steps for furnishing of such materials, before proceeding with finalisation of penalty. 5. Under such circumstances, these writ petitions are 3 W.P.(C).Nos.5912 & 6054 of 2011 disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the objections submitted by the petitioners against the proposal and to finalise the matter, after providing copies of records if any found to be supplied and after affording a reasonable opportunity for personal hearing to the petitioners. A decision in this regard shall be taken at the earliest possible, after providing sufficient opportunities as directed above. Needless to say that the petitioners will be at liberty to resort to statutory remedies available, if they are aggrieved by such decisions. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/