IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2009 / 28TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 29530 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A. ABDUL JABBAR, A.J.TRADERS, COURT ROAD, ALATHUR-678 541. BY ADV. SRI.M.UNNIKRISHNA MENON SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, GOVERNMENT OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. 3. T.S.SALUDHIEN, AL-SHAHANA TRADERS, MEENAKSHIPURAM, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.29530 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act). In respect of the assessment year 2008-09, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P1 order, completing the assessment by making additions to the turnover conceded on the basis of allegation that the petitioner had suppressed various purchases effected from the 3rd respondent during the period between May 2008 to March 2009. It is stated that the petitioner had already preferred statutory appeal against Ext.P1 assessment. According to the petitioner he has not conducted any business transactions with the 3rd respondent and he apprehends that his registration number was misutilised by the 3rd respondent for effecting bogus transactions. In this regard the petitioner had submitted Ext.P2 representation before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Intelligence) of the Commercial Tax Department, Palakkad. In the said representation the petitioner had specifically requested the authority to conduct an enquiry regarding the matter in order to ascertain veracity and genuineness of the transactions. W.P.(C).29530/09-I 2 It is also submitted that the petitioner had initiated criminal action against the 3rd respondent by submitting complaints to the police authorities concerned. It is further stated that the petitioner had already raised claim against the 3rd respondent seeking compensation with respect to the damages sustained due to the alleged business transactions attributed against the petitioner. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that any of the competent officers under respondents 1 and 2 are not taking any serious steps to conduct a genuine enquiry regarding the matter, inspite of submission of repeated requests. According to the petitioner unless the real nature of the alleged transactions is brought out through an enquiry, the petitioner cannot escape from the liability of the assessment. If a detailed enquiry is conducted by a competent authority, it will be proved that the alleged transactions were not purchases effected by the petitioner and it is only due to bogus bills raised in the name of the petitioner that such liability is attributed against him. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the matter requires attention at the hands of the 2nd respondent, who is having jurisdiction over the area concerned. The 2nd respondent will consider grievance of the petitioner and will order an enquiry to be conducted through any W.P.(C).29530/09-I 3 competent officer under him, with respect to the allegations raised in Ext.P2, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his claims. Such enquiry may be conducted as early as possible, in order to facilitate the petitioner to make use of the result of such enquiry in the appeal pending disposal before the statutory appellate authority. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb