IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2011 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 35452 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SRI. T. L. PAUL, THERATHIL HOUSE, OLLUR, TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI. E. P. GOVINDAN SMT. G. DEEPA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO. IV, COMMERCIAL TAXES, TRICHUR – 680 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES KERALA, PUBLIC BUILDING, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. S. SUDHISH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2010, THE COURT ON 21/12/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PN WP(C).No. 35452 of 2010(F) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT. P1 COPY OF THE PENALTY NOTICE DT. 12.11.2010 FOR THE YEARS 2009-2010 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT. P2 COPY OF THE PENALTY NOTICE DT. 12.11.2010 FOR THE YEARS 2010-2011 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT. P3 COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT DT. 30.07.2010 PREPARED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT. P4 COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 04.11.2010 DIRECTING TO APPEAR BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT. P5 COPY OF THE POSTAL COVER. EXT. P6 COPY OF THE REPLY DT. 12.11.2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT. P7 COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 12.11.2010 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P. A. TO JUDGE PN C.K. ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(c) No.35452 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011 J U D G M E N T Exhibits P1 and P2 notices issued to the petitioner proposing imposition of penalty under Section 67 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) is the subject matter of challenge. It is on the basis of an inspection conducted by the Intelligence Squad and on the basis of seizure of valuable business documents that the penalty was proposed. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that, inspite of submission of specific requests as per Exts.P6 and P7 the 1st respondent had not furnished copies of the seized records for facilitating the petitioner to submit effective objection to the proposal notices and to contest the matter before the said authority, before finalisation of the penalty proceedings. 3. Learned Government Pleader, on the basis of instructions, submitted that on receipt of the request for furnishing copies of the seized records, a reply has been sent to the petitioner on 15-11-2010 permitting him to take photocopies of the relevant records, but the petitioner has not availed such opportunity. However, learned counsel for the petitioner denies receipt of any such reply to the request made by the petitioner. W.P.(c) No.35452/2011 -2- 4. Considering the rival contentions, I am of the view that, interests of justice will be met if a direction is issued to 1st respondent to permit the petitioner to take photocopies of the relevant records and if a direction is issued to afford the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity to file objection after permitting to take photocopies as requested. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to issue fresh intimation to the petitioner specifying the date on which he may be permitted to take photocopies of the seized records. Petitioner shall be offered further time of 10 days thereafter, to furnish objections to the proposal, if necessary after issuing fresh notice. Needless to say that before finalising the proceedings the petitioner shall also be given an opportunity of personal hearing. Petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for proper compliance. Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. AMG True copy P.A to Judge