IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2011 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5071 of 2011(H) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- A. MADHAVAN PILLAI, PROPRIETOR, ASSOCIATED CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES, MARKET ROAD, ALUVA BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN, SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER, SRI.R.JAIKRISHNA. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB) OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE) EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24 2. SALES TAX OFFICER, 3RD CIRCLE , ERNAKULAM-15 3. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ALUVA-683 101 4. KERANAD POLYOL INDUSTRIES, 2/182 MANUR CHEKANUR ROAD, MUNDUR P.O, VIA-VATTAMKULAM, EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM-679 578. REPRESENTED BY M.H. MOHAMMED, 5. SALES TAX OFFICER, PONNANI-679 577. R1 TO R3 & R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 5071 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P11 order through which penalty was imposed on the petitioner under section 45A of the KGST Act read with section 19(C) of the said Act, to the tune of Rs.56,36,200/-. The proceedings was initiated on the basis of an allegation that the authority had collected material evidence to the effect that the petitioner, in collusion with another firm, was engaged in clandestine transaction SKO ( Kerosene) with a willful intention to defraud revenue due to the State, by using fake bills and agreements, and that the petitioner had filed untrue and incorrect returns. 2. Eventhough various contentions are raised by the petitioner regarding sustainability of the order, including certain legal grounds, I am of the view that the matter could not be looked into in exercise of the jurisdiction vested under Article 226, since an effective alternative remedy is provided under the statute. The petitioner can file appeal against Ext.P11 and WP(C) 5071/2011 2 the appellate authority being a fact finding authority will be capable of evaluating all such contentions which may require appreciation based on evidence and records. Therefore, I am of the view that the writ petition is not sustainable. 3. However, confronted with the above view, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to approach the appellate authority. It is submitted that the petitioner will approach the appellate authority within a short time and it is prayed for a direction to keep the recovery steps pending, till then. 4. Having considered the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner can be relegated to the appellate authority. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to file appeal against Ext.P11 before the appropriate authority within a period of two weeks from today. If any such appeal is filed against Ext.P11 within the time stipulated as above, the appropriate appellate authority shall treat the same as an appeal filed within the period of limitation and shall proceed to dispose of the same on merits. WP(C) 5071/2011 3 5. Needless to say that the petitioner will be at liberty to seek appropriate interim relief from the appellate authority regarding realisation of the amounts due, pending disposal of the appeal. 6. In order to facilitate the petitioner to approach the appellate authority and to seek appropriate interim relief, realisation of amounts covered under Ext.P11 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two months. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) 5071/2011 4