IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2008 / 2ND SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22277 of 2008(B) PETITIONER: --------------------- R.SREEKUMAR, S/O. LATE K.S.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR, AGED 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT AZHAKATH PUTHEN VEEDU, KILIKOLLOOR POST, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 004. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.RAMACHANDRAN SRI.M.K.SUBHAKARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER-IV, SPECIAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM. 3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE), KOLLAM. 4. SRI.K.M.NAZAR, S/O.A.M.MUSTHAFA, AGED 51 YEARS, KURUMPELIL HOUSE, PATTATHANAM, KOLLAM. 5. SMT.BABY NAZIA, W/O.K.M.NAZAR, AGED 44 YEARS, KURUMPELIL, PATTATHANAM, KOLLAM. WP(C).No. 22277 of 2008 :: 2 :: 6. SRI.SHAFEEQ NAZAR, S/O.K.M.NAZAR, AGED 21 YEARS, KURUMPELIL, PATTATHANAM, KOLLAM. 7. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (AUDIT ASSESSMENT), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.22277 of 2008 B ------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P3 to P9 notices issued to the petitioner under Section 19(c) read with Section 17 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. 2. The primary ground of challenge is that the petitioner is only a Tax Practitioner, who had assisted the assessee in filing the returns as such. Therefore, the very act of issuing notices to the petitioner is an abuse of the process of law. It is further contended that the notices are issued almost 12 years after the assessment year and several years after the assessment was completed on the assessee. 3. In my view, these are objections which could be validly considered by the Assessing Authority. In fact, it is admitted by the petitioner that objections have already been filed and in such circumstances, there is no reason why this court should interfere with the notices, at this stage. But, it is made clear that if the petitioner raises a contention, both as regards the delay or the jurisdiction of the W.P.(C).NO.22277 of 2008 :: 2 :: authority to issue the notices, such objections shall be specifically dealt with by the Assessing Authority while passing orders pursuant to the notices which are impugned in this writ petition. Needless to say the petitioner or his authorised representative shall be heard before such orders are passed. All other contentions raised by the petitioner are left open. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge