K.P.Namboodiris Ayurvedics vs. State Tax Officer (Int)
Original PDF →IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 13TH KARTHIKA, 1941 WP(C).No.27952 OF 2019(T) PETITIONER: K.P.NAMBOODIRIS AYURVEDICS KALLUR, VADAKKEKKAD, THRISSUR - 679 562,REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, K. BHAVADASAN BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.R.SREEJITH SMT. ARYA ANIL SHRI.GOKULRAJ L. SMT.SRI HARINI S.P. RESPONDENT: STATE TAX OFFICER (INT) SQUAD NO. II, SGST DEPARTMENT, POOTHOLE, THRISSUR - 680 004 GOVT.PLEADER SMT.THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(C) No.27952/19 2 JUDGMENT The challenge in the writ petition is to Ext.P9 order passed by the respondent, confirming a demand of tax and penalty pursuant to a detention of a vehicle that was carrying goods belonging to the petitioner. In the writ petition, the challenge against Ext.P9 order is mainly on the contention that, while in response to the notice received by the petitioner, he had clearly indicated that a substantial part of the turnover pertained to goods that were meant for export that were not liable to tax under the GST Act, the said contention was not examined by the respondent while passing Ext.P9 order. It is stated therefore that Ext.P9 order is vitiated by a non-application of mind by the respondent.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent.
On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I find from a perusal of Ext.P9 that the contention of the petitioner regarding export of goods was not considered by the respondent in Ext.P9, although the said contention was raised in Ext.P7 reply submitted by the petitioner. In my view, the said non- consideration vitiates Ext.P9 order. I, therefore, quash Ext.P9 order and
W.P(C) No.27952/19 3 direct the respondent to pass fresh orders in lieu thereof, after hearing the petitioner and after specifically referring to the contentions in Ext.P7 reply submitted by the petitioner. To enable the respondent to do so, I direct the petitioner to appear before the respondent at his office at 11 A.M. on 15.11.2019. The respondent shall pass fresh orders, as directed, within a month thereafter. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
okb //// P.S. to Judge
W.P(C) No.27952/19 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE FORM GST MOV-01, DATED 29.01.2019 EXHIBIT P2OF THE FORM GST MOV-02, DATED 29.01.2019 EXHIBIT P3OF THE FORM GST INS-04, DATED 29.01.2019 EXHIBIT P4OF BANK GUARANTEE DATED 29.01.2019 EXHIBIT P5OF RELEASE ORDER DATED 29.1.2019 EXHIBIT P6OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 11.02.2019 EXHIBIT P7OF THE REPLY DATED 22.02.2019 EXHIBIT P8OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY DATED 02.03.2019 EXHIBIT P9OF THE ORDER DATED 16.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.