IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35305 of 2009(G)
1. PAREETH MUHAMMED, PROPRIETOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :13/01/2010
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.
------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.35305 OF 2009
------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of January, 2010
J U D G M E N T
———————-
1. Penalty under Section 67(1) of the Kerala Value
Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) was imposed on the petitioner
for the year 2007-08 subsequent to an inspection conducted by
the Intelligence Squad of the Commercial Tax Department. The
petitioner is conducting a granite crushing unit and producing
crushed metals from granite rubbles purchased. Contention of
the petitioner is that on the basis of the inspection conducted
turnover of the petitioner was estimated in an arbitrary manner
assuming that power consumption of the industry will be 18
units per hour and calculating production based on such power
consumption presumed without conducting any test running or
without making any scientific study. Further, the entire stock
found at the time of inspection was treated as excess stock.
According to the petitioner the imposition of penalty was totally
without jurisdiction since no conclusive evidence of any
suppression was detected. Therefore Ext.P6 order is challenged
in this writ petition without filing statutory appeal.
2. However, during pendency of the writ petition the
petitioner had produced Ext.P8, copy of appeal memorandum
and Ext.P9, copy of delay condonation petition filed before the
W.P.(C).35305/09- 2
appellate authority, the additional 3rd respondent impleaded
herein, and also amended the writ petition seeking appropriate
reliefs for disposal of the statutory appeal.
3. Since the appeal filed along with petition seeking
condonation of delay is pending adjudication before the
additional 3rd respondent, I am of the opinion that the writ
petition can be disposed of on issuing necessary direction for
disposal of those matters by the appellate authority.
4. Accordingly the 3rd respondent is directed to consider
and pass orders on Ext.P9 application filed seeking condonation
of delay in filing the appeal, after affording an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within
a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. If delay in filing the appeal is condoned and if the
appeal is admitted on the files, the 3rd respondent shall consider
the appeal and dispose of the same within one month thereafter.
5. The respondents are directed to keep coercive steps
of recovery of amounts covered under Ext.P6 in abeyance, till the
disposal of the matter by the 3rd respondent as directed above.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
okb