IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 10TH APRIL 2008 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 9085 of 2008(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S. MOHAMMEDENS TIMBER CORPORATION ADOOPRAMBU, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT REPRESETNED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER M.M.MUHAMMED KUNJU. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.RAMAN (SR.) SHRI.BOBBY JOHN PND NAMBOOTHIRI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB) COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERY. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. 5. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SHRI.C.K.GOVINDAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/04/2008, ALONG WITH WP(C) No. 9182/2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos. 9085 & 9182 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 10th day of April, 2008 J U D G M E N T Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader. 2. Petitioners have filed these writ petitions challenging penalty orders issued under Section 45A of the KGST Act for evasion of sales tax for several years. Even though there is an alternative remedy by way of appeal against penalty orders, petitioners have approached this Court on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, in as much as they are not furnished with copies of documents relied on in adjudication proceedings. On going through the orders issued by the Intelligence Officer, I find that the adjudication proceedings are a result of detailed enquiry conducted pursuant to directions issued by this Court in another case. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioners are entitled to get entire details of the purchasers including their assessment details under the Right to Information Act, which is denied to them. I do not think there is any need to consider the question whether petitioners are entitled to the documents under the Right to Information Act because petitioners are otherwise entitled to copies of documents based on which penalty is levied. WP(C) Nos.9085 & 9182/2008 -2- However, the case established by the Intelligence Officer is that the sales accounted by the petitioners to the Buyers are bogus in as much as the Buyers did not have even the capacity to make the purchases accounted by petitioners. In the circumstances, and in view of the factual issues involved, petitioners have to only file appeals against penalty orders. However, since these writ petitions are pending for some time in this Court, I grant stay against recovery proceedings for one month from now, within which time, petitioners will remit 30% of the penalty amount and file appeals before the Deputy Commissioner accompanied by receipts of payment made as abbove. If appeals are filed within one month from today along with receipts of payments made as above, the Deputy Commissioner will treat the appeals as filed in time, give the petitioners an opportunity to verify records relied on by the Intelligence Officer and pass orders after hearing the petitioners within three months thereafter. If 30% is paid in one month, stay will continue for three months thereafter. However, if petitioners do not remit the amount as above, then recovery can be continued subject to stay orders, if any, issued by the appellate authority. These writ petitions are disposed of as above. Issue photocopy today itself. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) jg