IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2010 / 28TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 31821 of 2010(C) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SRI.T.L.ANTO, PROPRIETOR, ANTO SANITATIONS, AZHIKODAN STREET, KURIACHIRA, TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN SMT.G.DEEPA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.1, COMMERCIAL TAXES, TRICHUR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KERALA, PUBLIC BUILDING, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.31821 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- The business place of the petitioner was inspected by the 1st respondent and other officers, on 30.7.2010, and various records were seized on preparing shop inspection reports. The petitioner had approached this court on an earlier occasion alleging that inspite of various approaches made, copies of the seized records were not furnished to him. In that writ petition, he raised the grievance that, unless copies of such records were not furnished, he will be prevented from effectively resisting the proposal for imposing penalty. It was alleged that inspite of specific written request made in that behalf, the copies were not furnished. The said writ petition, WP(C).No. 28518/2010, was disposed of by this court on 17.9.2010 directing the authorities to consider and to take appropriate decision on the request of the petitioner for furnishing copies of the seized records, before proceeding with any steps for W.P.(C).31821/10-C -2- imposition of penalty. The authorities were directed to take a decision in this regard after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner at the earliest possible. 2. The present writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P1 notice which was issued with proposal to impose penalty under Section 44(8) & (10) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act). On a perusal of Ext.P1 it is revealed that penalty was proposed based on the very same inspection, conducted on 30.7.2010. It is alleged that, during the inspection it was revealed that the petitioner had stocked goods in undeclared godowns, in an unauthorised manner. Grievance of the petitioner is that Ext.P1 notice was issued without taking note of the judgment of this court in WP(C).No. 28518/10 and without furnishing copies of the seized records. It is further contended that there is total non-compliance of mandatory procedures prescribed under Section 44 with respect to imposition of penalty on the allegation of storage of goods in undeclared godowns. It is also contended that the proposal is issued in total violation of principles of natural justice, since the petitioner was not furnished with copies of the seized records. The petitioner is seeking to quash Ext.P1, also on the ground that it is legally W.P.(C).31821/10-C -3- unsustainable as the proceedings is proposed on a total erroneous exercise of jurisdiction vested on the respondents. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances as stated above, it is noticed that Ext.P1 is only a proposal notice calling for objection against proposal for imposing penalty under Section 44(8) and (10). It is for the petitioner to raise all contentions before the authority concerned. It is at a highly premature stage for this court to look into the grounds raised against the proposal notice on the merits, which basically depends on various factual aspects. 4. It is also noticed that if the penalty is finalised pursuant to Ext.P1 notice, without furnishing copies of the seized records, without complying with the directions contained in the judgment of this court and without affording him a reasonable opportunity to file objections, it will cause severe prejudice to the petitioner. It is only just and proper in the interest of justice to furnish copies of the seized records without any further delay and to afford the petitioner sufficient time to furnish objections, after giving copies of such records. Needless to say that, before finalising any proceedings the petitioner should also be provided with reasonable opportunity of personal hearing. W.P.(C).31821/10-C -4- 5. Under the above circumstances the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to comply with the directions contained in the judgment in WP(C).No.28518/2010, before finalising the proceedings initiated pursuant to Ext.P1 notice, and also to afford reasonable opportunities to file objections and for personal hearing. The petitioner will produce copy of this judgment along with the judgment in WP(C).No.28518/2010, before the respondent concerned. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb