IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/30TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 35428 of 2010 (C) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S) : --------------------- SMT. SUGANTHI STELLA RANI, PROPRIETRIX, R.B. CHINESE FOOD PRODUCTS, AVENUE 5TH (41) PRIYADARSINI NAGAR, KONTHURUTHY, THEVARA, COCHIN - 13. BY ADVS.SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN SMT.G.DEEPA RESPONDENT(S) : ------------------------ 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.1, COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERRY AT ALUVA - 683 501. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES KERALA, PUBLIC BUILDING, VIKAS BHAVAN.P.O., TRIVANDRUM - 695 001. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001. R1 TO R3 BY SRI.S.SUDHISH KUMAR, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-12-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AMV WP(C).No. 35428 of 2010 (C) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : P1. : COPY OF THE SHOP INSPECTION REPORT DATED 01.06.2010. P2. : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.08.2010 BY THE PETITIONER. P3. : COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD. P4. : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16.10.2010 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE AMV C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(c) No. 35428 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011 J U D G M E N T Exhibit P4 notice issued by the 1st respondent proposing to impose penalty under Section 67 (1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) is under challenge in this writ petition. It is evident that the proposal notice was issued pursuant to an inspection conducted at the business places of the petitioner, and pursuant to seizure of records pertaining to the business activities. Contention of the petitioner is that he is disabled from filing effective objections to the proposal notice, because the entire records has been taken into custody by the 1st respondent and since the seized records were not returned inspite of Ext.P2 request. 2. Learned Government Pleader on instruction submitted that, there is no difficulty in permitting the petitioner to take photocopies of whatever relevant documents required, from the seized records. Therefore, I am of the view that if a direction is issued to the W.P.(c) No.35428/2010 -2- 1st respondent permitting the petitioner to take photocopies of the relevant records and if an opportunity is afford to file objections before finalising the proceedings, that will suffice to meet the ends of justice. 3. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to issue intimation to the petitioner specifying the date on which he may be permitted to take photocopies of the relevant records. The petitioner shall be offered opportunity to file objection to the proposal, after permitting to take photocopies of the documents as directed above. Needless to say that before finalising the proceedings the petitioner shall also be given an opportunity of personal hearing. 4. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for proper compliance. Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. AMG True copy P.A to Judge