Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1946 WA NO. 995 OF 2024 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.18332 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER VIKAS A SHAH AGED 50 YEARS 9/6, BEACH ROAD, KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673001 BY ADVS.
SRIKANTH THAMBAN SRAVAN M.S.
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT STATE TAX OFFICER OFFICE OF THE STATE TAX OFFICER, TAXPAYER SERVICES CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE CITY, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, 1ST FLOOR, JAWAHAR NAGAR COLONY, ERANJIPALAM P.O, KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN – 673006 SRI.V.K SHAMSUDHEEN. GP THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.995 of 2024 2 J U D G M E N T ============
Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
The petitioner in W.P(C) No.18332 of 2024 is the appellant herein, aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.07.2024 of the learned Single Judge in the writ petition.
2. In much as the facts necessary for disposal of the writ appeal have already been detailed in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, we do not chose to reiterate those facts here.
3. Briefly stated the contention of the appellant before us is that, the learned Single Judge erred in relegating him to his alternative remedy of preferring an appeal against Ext.P11 order in terms of CGST/SGST Act, 2017.
4. On a consideration of the pleadings before us, we find as rightly noticed by the learned Single Judge that the
W.A.No.995 of 2024 3 appellant was afforded a personal hearing before passing Ext.P11 order that was impugned in the writ petition. Although it is his case that he was not aware of the substance of the issues in respect to which he was asked to show cause, we find from a perusal of Ext.P11 order that the appellant was informed of the grounds on which the show cause notice was issued, and he had submitted before the adjudicating authority, that the records necessary for completing the assessment were available with him, but had not been carried by him at the time of personal hearing.
5. We find that the adjudication order was passed almost two weeks after the date of the personal hearing, within which time, the appellant could have made available the records before the adjudicating authority. This also, was not however done. Under the circumstances, we find that the appellant has only himself to blame for the predicament that he finds himself in. As rightly noticed by the learned Single Judge, the remedy of the appellant in such a situation lies in approaching the Appellate Authority under the Act in a challenge against Ext.P11 order. We see no reason to interfere with the judgment
W.A.No.995 of 2024 4 of the learned Single Judge impugned in this writ appeal.
The writ appeal fails and is dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/- SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE smm