IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2011 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 10648 of 2011(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SRI.ANIL MENON.V., PROPRIETOR, M/S.ANIL POULTRY FARM, XI/892-A, ANIL MENON ESTATE, NELLIPPARA, MUTHALAMADA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN SMT.G.DEEPA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD - 678 001. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, CHITTOOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 101. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KERALA, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., TRIVANDRUM 695 001. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.10648 of 2011-E ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of April, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P1 order through which penalty was imposed against the petitioner under Section 47(6) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act). It is evident that Ext.P1 is an order appealable under the provisions of the KVAT Act. But the petitioner had chosen to challenge the proceedings without resorting to the statutory remedy, on the ground that the penalty was imposed based on the reason that the petitioner had failed in complying with the conditions stipulated in a direction issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to the effect that the sale bills issued by the dealers have to be affixed with the office seal of the assessing authority. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that such a direction was not made known to the petitioner nor any copy of the same was issued to him. It is further contended that the detention of transport as well as the imposition of W.P(C) No.10648 of 2011-E 2 penalty on the basis of an allegation that the petitioner had violated certain conditions stipulated in an order of the Commissioner, which was not published, is totally unsustainable. According to the petitioner penalty can be imposed only if the enquiry officer had arrived at a conclusion that there was an attempt in evasion of tax. 3. I find no reason to invoke the jurisdiction vested on this court under Article 226, by-passing the statutory remedy available to the petitioner. If the reason for imposition of penalty is unsustainable, it will be a ground available to the petitioner to assail the order before the statutory authority. The statutory authority is vested with powers to examine the illegality, irregularity or impropriety of the orders impugned. Therefore merely because the penalty was imposed on the basis of an allegation of violation of order of the Commissioner, it need not be a matter for adjudication in a writ petition. There is no extra ordinary circumstances prevailing to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226, by-passing the effective alternative W.P(C) No.10648 of 2011-E 3 remedy available. 4. Hence the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to invoke remedy of appeal against Ext.P1 order. 5. If the petitioner makes any approach for getting copy of the order of the Commissioner referred to in Ext.P2, the respondents shall furnish the same to the petitioner in order to facilitate the petitioner to challenge the proceedings in an effective manner. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab