IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2009 / 22ND POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 32289 of 2008(R) ------------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- V.K.SIVAN PILLAI, PROPRIETOR, SIVA ENTERPRISES, VENGALATHUMADOM, MATHIRAPPALLY, KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691. BY ADV. SRI.S.VINOD BHAT RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER(AUDIT ASSESSMENT) COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C). NO. 32289 OF 2008 R PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1COPY OF THE REVISED NOTICE NO.32151078944/2005-06 DATED 28.7.2007 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P2COPY OF THE ORDER NO.32151078944/2005-06 DATED 19.9.2008 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // PS to Judge K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 32289 OF 2008 R -------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th January, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P2. The main ground taken by the petitioner is that it is barred by limitation. The proceedings is under Section 67 of the KVAT Act. Section 67 of the KVAT Act, inter alia, provides in the proviso as follows: “Provided that the Authority empowered under this Section shall dispose of the case within one year from the date of detection of the offence mentioned under this Section except where extension of time is granted by the Deputy Commissioner.” Paragraph 6 of the Counter Affidavit reads as follows: “It is true that the details of suppression has detected by the Department as per the letter dated 13.7.2007 issued by the Chief Engineer, KSEB. The said letter received by the department only on 27.7.2007. On the very same day a revised notice under Section 24(1) of the VAT Act was issued. The WPC.32289/08 R 2 order under Section 67(1) of the Act was actually passed on 1.8.2008. In this context, it is noted that there is only 3 days delay in passing the order as per Section 67(1) of the Act.” 2. Therefore, it is not in dispute that the order is passed beyond the time. There is no case also that extension of time was granted by the Deputy Commissioner. In such circumstances, it is patent that the action of imposing penalty vide Ext.P2 is palpably illegal and it is beyond time. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is only to be allowed and I do so and quash Ext.P2. I make it clear that this will be without prejudice to any other action which can be taken in accordance with law against the petitioner. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge