IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 33785 of 2009(P) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ THE SOUTH INDIAN GREEN CARDAMOM COMPANY LTD., DOOR NO.XVII/225-228, VECHOORATTU BUILDING, VANDANMEDU-685 551. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR R.JANARDHANAN. BY ADV. MR.RAMESH CHERIAN JOHN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.1 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, IDUKKI AT KATTAPPANA. 2. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, IDUKKI AT KATTAPPANA. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2009, ALONG WITH WPC. NO.33786 OF 2009 & 33787 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL RAHIM, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).Nos.33785,33786 & 33787 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner in these cases are dealers engaged in the business of cardamom, who are licenced auctioners. They were issued with notices proposing to impose penalty under Section 67(1) (d) of the Kerala Value Added Tax (for short KVAT Act), based on the allegation that on a verification of records available with the assessing authority, disparity was detected between the quantity of cardamom pooled in their auction centres, with that of the quantity of cardamom sold as conceded in the returns filed. Therefore, suppression of actual quantity of cardamom dealt with in collusion with smugglers, and thereby evasion of tax liability is alleged. Accordingly penalty was proposed by the 1st respondent. 2. In the objections filed by the petitioners they made requests for supply of copies of details and materials, which are alleged to have been unearthed by the 1st respondent and which are being put against the petitioners as incriminating materials for the purpose of imposing the penalty. Petitioners W.P.(C).Nos.33785/2009 & conn. cases -2- have also requested for affording opportunity for cross-examining the Commercial Tax Officer concerned, in order to disprove the allegations. But the 1st respondent replied that such requests are not acceptable for the reason that, the objections already filed by the petitioners are not supported by any documentary evidences. The petitioners were directed to submit documentary evidences in support of their claims within 7 days of receipt of those notices. Aggrieved by the above said reply in these cases, the petitioners have approached this court. 3. Learned Government pleader appearing for the respondents on the basis of instructions submitted that, the request of the petitioners for supplying copies of relevant materials/documents can be allowed. It is further submitted all such materials/documents which were relied on for proposing penalty are already available with the respective assessing authorities. Therefore it is submitted that the petitioners can approach the assessing authorities for getting copies of such materials/documents if required by them. It is also submitted that on the basis of requests made by the petitioners, posting of the matter for the purpose of cross-examination of the Commercial W.P.(C).Nos.33785/2009 & conn. cases -3- Tax Officers concerned, are already been intimated. 4. Having considered the above submissions, I am of the opinion that the writ petitions can be disposed of on issuing necessary directions to the 1st respondent. Hence the 1st respondent is directed to keep in abeyance further proceedings, till the petitioners are supplied with necessary materials/documents as required by them. If the petitioners make any specific request before the assessing authorities concerned, for supply of copies of any particular records/documents, within a period of one week, from the date of receipt of the judgment, the assessing authorities concerned shall issue such copies within another week thereafter. The cross- examination now proposed may be adjourned to any convenient date after issuance of the required materials/documents. The 1st respondent shall ensure that reasonable opportunity is afforded by providing copies of incriminating materials, as well as opportunity for cross-examining witnesses to the petitioners, before finalising the penalty proceedings. These writ petitions are disposed with the above observations. (C.K.ABDUL RAHIM, JUDGE) pmn/ W.P.(C).Nos.33785/2009 & conn. cases -4- C.K.ABDUL RAHIM, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C).Nos.31909 & 31912 of 2009 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 13th November, 2009