Muhammed Siddik.M.S vs. The State Tax Officer-I - Kerala High Court, 18 November 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 27TH KARTHIKA, 1941 WP(C).No.31085 OF 2019(I) PETITIONER: MUHAMMED SIDDIK.M.S AGED 35 YEARS PROPRIETOR, M/S. SAAD ASSOCIATES, KAYAMKULAM, BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS: 1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER-I STATE GST DEPARTMENT, KAYAMKULAM-690502. 2 THE MANAGER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD, KAYAMKULAM-690502. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.THUSHARA JAMES SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P(C) No.31085/19 2 JUDGMENT The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P3 order passed by the 1st respondent, restoring Ext.P1 earlier assessment order passed by him. In the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that Ext.P1 assessment order, that was earlier passed by the assessing authority, was set aside through Ext.P2 order of the Appellate Authority on the finding that Ext.P1 order was passed without considering the books of accounts, which the assessee was ready to produce before the assessing authority. The Appellate Authority remanded the matter to the assessing authority so as to enable the assessing authority to follow the guidelines for assessment and go through the books of accounts to be produced by the petitioner assessee. Thereafter, it would appear that a notice dated 13.8.2019 was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to produce the books of accounts for the assessment year 2015-16. The petitioner assessee did not, however, respond to the said notice and did not produce any books of accounts before the assessing authority. Under such circumstance, the assessing authority was forced to complete the assessment, in the same manner as was done in Ext.P1 order, by restoring the said order. Although it is the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was always ready and willing to produce the books of accounts, and that the petitioner was expecting a further notice from the respondents for producing the books of accounts, I do not find any merit in the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner since there is no explanation as to why the petitioner did not produce the books of accounts in response to the notice dated 13.8.2019 issued to him by the respondent assessing authority. Under such circumstances, I see no reason

W.P(C) No.31085/19 3 to interfere with Ext.P3 order of the assessing authority, which virtually restores Ext.P1 assessment order that was passed by him earlier. The writ petition in its challenge against Ext.P3 order is therefore rejected.

I also find that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by way of appeal against Ext.P3 order read with Ext.P1 order. To enable the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy, I direct that the recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P3 order, read with Ext.P1 order that has been restored, shall be kept in abeyance for a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment so as to enable the petitioner to move the Appellate Authority in the meanwhile. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE

okb //// P.S. to Judge

W.P(C) No.31085/19 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED 31.07.2018. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE ASST.COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), ALAPPUZHA DATED 25.04.2019. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10.10.2019.