IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2011 / 1ST POUSHA 1933 OP.No. 183 of 2003(V) --------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.A. JOJO S/O. T.J.ANTONY, THADIKKARAN HOUSE, KATTOOR, TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN SRI.TONY CHACKO RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER-III, OFFICE OF THE L.A.C. (INT.), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR. 2. THE ADDITIONAL SALES TAX OFFICER-III, IRINJALAKUDA. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, D.I.C., THRISSUR R1 TO R3 BY SPL.GOVT.PLEADER DR.SEBASTIAN CHAMPAPILLY THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BKA OP.No. 183 of 2003(V) APPENDIX PETITIONER'(S) EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.ITI.1/00-01/89 TO 92/95-96 TO 98-99 DATED 11.09.2002 PASSED BY THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER-III, THRISSUR. EXT .P2 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR 1995-96 DATED 10.02.1997 PASSED BY THE STO, IRINJALAKUDA. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR 1996-97 DATED 19.12.1997 PASSED BY THE STO, IRINJALAKUDA. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR 1997-98 DATED 28.12.2001 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 COPY OF THE EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE BY THE ORDER NO.A5/1828/96/D.Dis.DT.04.06.1996 ISSUED BY the 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'(S) ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE BKA K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------ OP NO. 183 OF 2003 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner in this original petition challenges Ext.P1 notice issued under Sec.45A read with Section 19(C) of the KGST Act. This Court on 07.01.2003 passed an interim order directing the Govt. Pleader to take instructions as to whether there is a protective assessment passed against the petitioner since the main ground raised by the petitioner was that there could not be any protective penalty under Section 19(C) without a protective assessment. However, neither the counsel for the petitioner nor the learned Special Govt. Pleader is aware of whether such a protective assessment is passed or not. 2. Admittedly, a notice was issued under Section 19(C) of the KGST Act threatening imposition of penalty under Section 45A of the KGST Act. The counsel for the petitioner OP NO. 183 OF 2003 ..2.. would submit before me that the penalty is sought to be imposed protectively on the petitioner by virtue of provisions under Section 19(C) of the KGST Act. The petitioner would argue that there is no material or much less any reason to believe that the petitioner had been associated or so carrying on the business of the firm against which the penalty is sought to be mulcted. The petitioner would also contend that no enquiry was conducted before the proceedings were initiated and that, in any event, the proceedings initiated are delayed. I am of the view that the petitioner has to raise all these contentions before the authority, who issued Ext.P1 notice and it is also to be noticed that there is no stay of proceedings granted by this Court while admitting the case. It may not be proper for this Court to make a roving enquiry into the disputed questions of facts as revealed from the notice and vehemently controverted by the petitioner's counsel. It is also not clear as to whether the proceedings initiated as per OP NO. 183 OF 2003 ..3.. Ext.P1 have been concluded. 3. In such circumstances, I am of the view that in the event of Ext.P1 proceedings having not been proceeded with and concluded, the petitioner can raise all contentions before the authority who issued Ext.P1. In the event of the petitioner approaching the 1st respondent with an objection to Ext.P1 within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, the 1st respondent shall fix a date for personal hearing within a period of one month thereafter and shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two months of the date on which hearing is conducted. This original petition is disposed of with the above observations. K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE bka/-