IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30105 of 2008(H)
1. M/S.J&J TIMBERS, 23/418, MAIN ROAD,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER(ASSESSMENT)
3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :14/10/2008
O R D E R
K.M. JOSEPH, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 30105 OF 2008 H
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 14th day of October, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner challenges Ext.P1. Ext.P1 is a notice
issued under section 19C of the KGST Act read with section
17(3) of the Act. Petitioner has already submitted Ext.P2
reply.
2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner
Sri.T.M.Sreedharan and the learned Government Pleader.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that there is
no basis for invoking section 19C of the Act and it is without
jurisdiction. He also contends that section 19C of the Act
cannot be invoked beyond five years.
3. After having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner, I am not satisfied that the question raised by the
petitioner need be considered under Article 226 of the
Constitution at this stage. I feel that the authority which has
issued Ext.P1 notice is duty bound to consider each and every
contentions raised by the petitioner. When a notice is issued
WPC.30105/08
: 2 :
and the party raises objections including objections relating to
jurisdiction, that it is barred by time, the statutory authority
should apply its mind and will not take a decision on the basis
that the notice is already issued. In other words, the statutory
authority must have an open mind and must be prepared to
correct itself if he has erred in the first place in issuing the
notice and the mistake is pointed out to it.
4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as
follows:
The 1st respondent will apply its mind to every
contentions raised before it and take a decision in the matter
in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity for
hearing to the petitioner. I feel that this will suffice in the
interest of justice. The 1st respondent is duty bound to
support whatever conclusions he may arrive at with proper
reasons.
Sd/-
(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)
aks
// TRUE COPY //
P.A. TO JUDGE