IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2008 / 9TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22379 of 2008(L) ---------------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ D.CHANDRAMOHAN, PROPRIETOR, GANGADEVI MARKETING ENTERPRISES, OLD SREEKANTESWARAM ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, FIRST CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.1, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DY. COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE), COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 22379 OF 2008 L -------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Exts.P11assessment order and Ext.P8 Notice. By Ext.P8 notice issued under Section 67 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, the Sales Tax Officer informed the petitioner that the petitioner had failed to file Returns for the months of February, March and April, 2008. It is also evident from Ext.P8 that in response to the penalty notice, the petitioner had stated that the monthly returns were filed on 16.6.2008 with interest and penalty. But, it is stated that it is not true and that the monthly VAT Returns for the months of February, April and May, 2008 were filed by the petitioner on 18.6.2008. It was, however, pointed out that the VAT Return for the month of March, 2008 has not been filed. Thereafter, by Ext.P11, assessment was completed under Section 22(3) of the KVAT Act for the month of March, 2008. Ext. P11 would show that the petitioner was served with the notice on 24.6.2008. WPC. 22379/08 L 2 However, observing that the petitioner has not responded to the notice, the order was passed on 30.6.2008 assessing the petitioner to tax. Ext.P11 contains a notice of demand following the assessment order. The notice is dated 5.7.2008. 2. The main complaint of the petitioner is that the petitioner was disabled from filing Return for the month of March, 2008 for the reason that the second respondent had taken the records which pertain to the month of March, 2008 and this fact also was brought to the notice of the first respondent by Ext.P6 dated 19.6.2008. It is despite this, that Ext.P11 order came to be passed. 3. I heard the learned Government Pleader. He would submit that it is true that the records pertaining to the month of March, 2008 had been seized by the second respondent. It is, however, pointed out that the petitioner had not brought this fact to the notice of the first respondent. However, he does not dispute the fact that the records pertaining to March, 2008 were indeed with the second respondent. This is also borne out in WPC. 22379/08 L 3 Ext.P9. I would think that, in such circumstances, this is a fit case where I should interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the interest of justice. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P11. The second respondent will deliver copies of the records which he had seized from the petitioner pertaining to the month of March, 2008 to the petitioner, upon the petitioner approaching the second respondent. Petitioner will file Return within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment and the first respondent will proceed to assess the petitioner in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy// PS to Judge