IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2008 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1930 W.A.No.2375 of 2008 ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.34497/2008-F, DATED 25/11/2008 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER:- ----------------------------------------- DEEPAK KUMAR VANJANI, PROPRIETOR, M/S VARUN ENTERPRISES, METRO TOWERS, CONVENT ROAD, OPP.SHENOY'S THEATRE, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-35. BY ADV. SRI.BOBBY JOHN & SRI.TOMSON T.EMMANUEL RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS:- --------------------------------------------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD-1V, COMMERCIAL TAXES, O/O DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE), ERNAKULAM. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KVAT CIRCLE III, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.Dattu,C.J. & A.K.Basheer,J. -------------------------------------------- W.A.No.2375 of 2008 -------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 12th December, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu,C.J. This Writ Appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.34497 of 2008, dated 25.11.2008. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has declined to entertain the writ petition; but has granted liberty to the petitioner, if he so desires, to prefer an appeal against the orders passed by the 2nd respondent-authority in exercise of his powers under Section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (“Act” for short). (2) A notice under Section 45A of the Act came to be issued by the Intelligence Officer, Squad No.IV, Ernakulam, inter alia, bringing to the notice of the dealer, that, an inspection had been conducted by the Intelligence Officer on 25.6.2004 and had prepared a shop inspection report. In that report, the Inspecting authority had recorded, that, the petitioner failed to produce the books of accounts for the assessment year 2004-05 and, secondly, certain purchase bills and business slips were also recovered from the business premises of the petitioner. Thereafter, had issued notices dated 6.7.2004, 2.8.2004, 29.10.2004, 21.6.2005, 24.8.2005, 12.12.2007, 25.6.2008 and 10.7.2008, inter alia, directing the petitioner to produce the books of accounts and participate in the enquiry proceedings. W.A.No.2375 of 2008 - 2 - (3) After receipt of the aforesaid notice, the petitioner would inform the authorities, that, in view of the illness of his Chartered Accountant, they are not in a position to produce the books of accounts. The authority, having waited for nearly four years and after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, has completed the proceedings under Section 45A of the Act, by his order dated 16.10.2008, imposing a penalty of Rs.12,25,540/-. (4) Petitioner was before this Court in W.P.(C).No.31403 of 2008. The relief sought for in the writ petition was, to direct the respondents therein to release the records of the petitioner recovered under the shop inspection report within a particular time frame. (5) The learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition on 11.11.2008. (6) In the instant case, as we have already noticed, the respondent-authority had passed an order on 16.10.2008, levying penalty. That order had been communicated to the petitioner. In spite of the same, the petitioner had not brought that fact to the notice of the Court when W.P.(C).No.31403 of 2008 was disposed of on 11.11.2008. Therefore, the learned Judge had no other alternative, but to direct the respondents therein to return the seized documents as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two weeks from the date of that order. Before that order could be passed, as we have already stated, the respondents herein had passed an W.A.No.2375 of 2008 - 3 - order under Section 45A of the Act, imposing a penalty of Rs.12,25,540/-. It is that order which was called in question by the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.34497 of 2008. The learned Single Judge, in our opinion, has rightly directed the petitioner that, if, for any reason, he is aggrieved by the said order, he has to file an appropriate appeal as provided under the Act. (7) In our opinion, the remedy provided under the Act is not only effective but also efficacious remedy. Bypassing that remedy, the petitioner could not have approached this Court. (8) In the above view of the matter, while confirming the findings and conclusions reached by the learned Single Judge, we reject the Writ Appeal. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice A.K.Basheer vku/- Judge