T.T.Shijoy vs The State Of Kerala on 21 April, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 951 of 2009()


1. T.T.SHIJOY, S/O.THARUKUTTY,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. BINDHU SHIJOY, W/O.SHIJOY,

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,

3. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (III),

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.UNNIKRISHNA MENON

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :21/04/2009

 O R D E R
                S. SIRI JAGAN & ANTONY DOMINIC, JJ.

            ---------------------------------------------
                      W.A. No.951 of 2009
            ---------------------------------------------
                     Dated: APRIL 21, 2009

                            JUDGMENT

Siri Jagan, J.

The appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition. In the

writ petition the petitioner challenged Exts.P1 and P2 notices

issued by the 3rd respondent under sec.67 of the Kerala Value

Added Tax Act directing the petitioner to file objections, if any,

to the proposal to impose penalty on the petitioner for evasion

of tax. Noting that Exts.P1 and P2 are only notices inviting

objections from the petitioner, the learned Single Judge

disposed of the writ petition with the following judgment:-

“Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

learned Government Pleader. Petitioners challenge

Exts.P1 and P2 and seek a declaration that the Sales Tax

Authorities have no power to issue an order under Section

26 of the KVAT Act without complying with the legal

provisions. Exts.P1 and P2 are Notices issued under

Section 67 of the KVAT Act. Learned counsel for the

petitioners points out that the Officer has made up his

mind and transactions beyond the purview of the Act are

W.A. No.951 of 2009
2

projected in the Notices. Learned Government Pleader

submits that it is only a proposal. I feel that this is a case

where the petitioners can file objections against Exts.P1

and P2. They can raise all objections before the Officer

who will be duty bound to consider the same with an open

mind and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the

petitioners. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of

relegating the petitioners to prefer their objections to

Exts.P1 and P2 before the Officer.”

2. Exts.P1 and P2 being only notices inviting objections,

we are of opinion that the learned Single Judge rightly relegated

the petitioner to file objections before the 3rd respondent taking

all contentions available to him, which objections have to be

considered by the 3rd respondent before passing final orders in

the matter. Accordingly the writ appeal is dismissed.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

mt/-