Judgment
2025:KER:30647 WA NO. 683 OF 2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WA NO. 683 OF 2025 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 10.3.2025 IN WP(C) NO.9102 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
M/S. LAKSHMI MOBILE ACCESSORIES 1, XIII/6A,6B, KAILASH BUILDING, PULIMOODU JUNCTION, NEAR SBI MAIN BRANCH, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686001.
BY ADVS.
K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR G.REMADEVI DIVYA RAVINDRAN HARIMA HARIHARAN RAJATH R NATH DHEERAJ SASIDHARAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 JOINT COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE & ENFORCEMENT) OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE & ENFORCEMENT, SGST DEPT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695002
2 JOINT COMMISSIONER TAX PAYER SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE JOINT
2025:KER:30647 WA NO. 683 OF 2025 2
COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXPAYER SERVICES, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, FIRST FLOOR, COLLECTORATE BUILDING, COLLECTORATE P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
OTHER PRESENT:
SR. GP SRI.VK SHAMSUDHEEN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:30647 WA NO. 683 OF 2025 3
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. & EASWARAN S., J.
---------------------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.683 of 2025 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of April, 2025
J U D G M E N T
Easwaran S., J.
The present intra-court appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned single Judge in WP(C) No.9102/2025 dated 10.03.2025.
2.
The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:
The appellant was issued with a show cause notice under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act/State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act/SGST Act, 2017). The said notice was questioned before the writ court in WP(C) No.2911/2025, wherein by Ext.P1 judgment, a composite show cause notice for 2018-2019 and 2023-2024 was set aside and liberty was granted to the competent amongst the respondents to pass appropriate orders for 2017-18, pursuant to the show cause notice dated 29.7.2024. The petitioner while participating in the enquiry proceedings sought permission of the proper officer to cross examine the witnesses, whose statements were recorded and put against him. Similarly, the specific contention raised by the writ petitioner was that he is an illiterate and knows only Hindi and Rajasthani language and the confession
2025:KER:30647 WA NO. 683 OF 2025 4
statement was recorded by the authorities as written down by Smt.Raji G., one of the accountants of the proprietary concern and therefore, he had no knowledge about the contents. Though he was arrested and later released on bail, having realised that the confession statements recorded by the authorities were against his interest and true facts, the petitioner retracted from the aforesaid statements and filed an affidavit before the proper officer. The proper officer after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, proceeded to pass final order under Ext.P4 finding that there is suppression of turnover and therefore, proceeded to assess the petitioner for tax and also imposed penalty. Challenging Ext.P4 order, the petitioner approached the writ court contending among others that the lack of affording an opportunity of cross examination of the third parties, who gave statements against the petitioner, would be tantamount to violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, the order of assessment has to be interfered with, notwithstanding the fact that an alternate remedy of filing an appeal is available under Section 107 of the CGST Act/SGST Act, 2017.
3.
The learned single Judge who considered the writ petition found that the petitioner could not point out any statement specifically relied on by the proper officer in the impugned order for imposing liability on the petitioner. Therefore, the learned single
2025:KER:30647 WA NO. 683 OF 2025 5
Judge took the view that prima facie this is not a case where the writ court should entertain the writ petition despite the existence of an alternate remedy of appeal, and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition against which the petitioner is before us in the present appeal.
4.
Heard Sri.K.S.Hariharan Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner, and Sri.V.K.Shamsudheen, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State.
5.
On consideration of the rival submissions raised across the bar, we find that inasmuch as the proper officer has not relied on any statement recorded by him from the 3rd parties for the purpose of imposing liability on the petitioner, we are not in a position to accept the argument of the appellant that there is violation of the principles of natural justice.
6.
Of course, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend before us that the finding by the proper officer is solely based on the confession statement made by the petitioner, who had no knowledge about the Malayalam language and that later, the said confession statement was retracted. However, we find that the proper officer had concluded that the retraction of
2025:KER:30647 WA NO. 683 OF 2025 6
the confession statement was not immediate and therefore, chose not to rely on the said confession statement.
In our considered view, the question as to whether the proper officer was justified in rejecting the retraction statement filed belatedly, is a matter which should gain attention of the appellate authority and not by the writ court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, we are of the view that no case is made out for interference in this intra-court appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
DR.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.,
JUDGE
jg