IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2009 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 38416 of 2003(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S. P.R.M. LAKSHMANA IYER ASSOCIATES, MANNAR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, R. VENKITACHALAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR SRI.KURYAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, CHENGANNUR. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.P.PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.38416/2003 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 04.06.2002 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 15.06.2002 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 11.07.2002 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DEPUTY COMMISSION, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 21.06.2002 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.11.2002 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALAPPUZHA. EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.12.2002 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN OP NO.36274/2002-R. EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.10.2003 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO. 19/88 DATED 14.12.1988. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 38416 of 2003 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 11th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Imposition of the penalty under Section 45 A of the KGST Act as per Ext.P4 which attained finality by virtue of the dismissal of the first revision as per Ext.P5 and the second revision as per Ext.P7, forms the subject matter of challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The challenge is raised on many a ground, specifically placing reliance on the stipulations under Section 30 B (4) of the Act, wherein the course to be pursued is clearly stipulated, when the consignee denies the transaction in respect of the goods brought into the State, making the authority liable to proceed against the consignor or the owner of the vehicle or the person in charge of the vehicle who fails to prove to the satisfaction of the assessing authority, as to the correctness of the particulars furnished in the declaration. The pleadings in the Writ Petition have been moulded with specific reference to Exts.P2 and P3, whereby the transactions have been denied by the petitioner/consignee, contending that the course open to the departmental authorities is only by proceeding against persons concerned as prescribed under Section 30 B (4), which naturally would have a bearing in respect of the proceedings issued under Section 45 A as well, submitting the learned counsel for the petitioner. WP(C) No. 38416 of 2003 2 3. The learned Government Pleader, referring to the amendment brought about as per Sub Section 12 to Section 3 of the Finance Act, 2005 submits that Section 30 B (4) was substituted with effect from 25.11.1988, whereby the right given to the consignee to deny the transaction and the consequential effect to such denial has virtually been taken away with effect from 25.11.1988 itself. However, the learned Government Pleader as well as learned counsel for the petitioner have brought it to the notice of this Court that, the things have taken a different turn, by virtue of the finalisation of the assessment proceedings (whereby the original assessment order was partially modified in the statutory appeals preferred before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and thereafter on second appeal preferred before the Tribunal, whereby the matter was remanded based on which modified assessment has been passed) and the liability was brought down to a considerable extent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said liability has been cleared by the petitioner availing the benefit under the 'Amnesty Scheme'. 4. In the above circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the question raised in the Writ Petition rather remains to be academic. This being the position, the legal issue is left open and the matter is set at rest. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc