IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1624 of 2009(R)
1. SRI. ABDUL NAZAR K, M/S N.M. STEELS &
... Petitioner
Vs
1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.II,
... Respondent
2. THE SALES TAX OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :23/01/2009
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.C. NO. 1624 OF 2009 R
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd January, 2009
JUDGMENT
Petitioner challenges Ext.P5 which is a notice under
Section 67(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act and seeks a
direction to the first respondent to refrain from imposing any
penalty on him pursuant to Ext.P5. Briefly put, the case of the
petitioner is as follows:
Petitioner was dealing in steel and cement. There was an
inspection on 12.12.2007. Thereafter, the first respondent
issued summons requiring the petitioner to produce Books of
Accounts for the years 2006 – 2007 and 2007 – 2008 vide
Ext.P1. Petitioner submitted reply stating that all the records
have been seized. By Ext.P2, petitioner sought time for
production of records after returning the seized documents.
Petitioner refers to Amnesty Scheme. Petitioner submitted
Exts.P3 and P4. Thereafter, the petitioner is faced with Ext.P5
notice proposing to impose penalty under Section 67(1) of the
WPC.1624/09 R 2
Act.
2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Government Pleader. The principal contention taken is
that more than one year has elapsed from the date of inspection
held on 12.12.2007, and without the records sought for being
given, petitioner will not be in a position to respond to the
penalty notice. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that in the notice, reference is made to recoveries
being taken as above, nearly more than Rs.11,83,00,000/= and
the details are not forthcoming. Per contra, learned Government
Pleader points out that the purport of the petition is to get back
the documents so as to create an Account. He also drew my
attention to Rule 63(7) of the Rules, to point out that the
respondents are entitled to retain the documents. It is further
pointed out that there is no limitation as the Deputy
Commissioner has extended the time.
3. I feel that the Writ Petition can be disposed of
permitting the petitioner to raise all the contentions before the
WPC.1624/09 R 3
Officer. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of relegating
the petitioner to raise all contentions against Ext.P5 notice. I
leave it open to the petitioner to contend before the Officer that
he should be given the documents or at least copies of the
documents and that he should be permitted to verify the
documents.
Sd/=
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE
kbk.
// True Copy //
PS to Judge