Mymoona K. vs. The State Of Kerala

By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the notice proceedings with the prayer that the 2nd respondent be directed to furnish documents demanded vide Ext.P2 notice, to the petitioner in a time bound manner. It is further prayed that the 2nd respondent be directed not to proceed against the petitioner in pursuant to Exts.P1 and P3 notices.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is the legal heir of one Ibrahim, who was not even doing any timber business in Kerala. He was doing some business in Karnataka. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that after receipt of Ext.P1 notice, the petitioner, who is a home maker through her advocate replied the same by Ext.P2 and demanded certain documents from the Sales Tax Authorities. However, as yet, no documents were supplied. But the Department has issued notice of show cause as to why penalty under section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act should not be imposed on the petitioner. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, unless the petitioner is supplied with the documents

As against this, the learned Government Pleader drew my attention to the show cause notice at Ext.P1 and stated that by mentioning particulars, about eight documents were called for from the petitioner in order to finalise determination of liability or otherwise of the sales tax for the year 2000-21. Learned Government Pleader further drew my attention to Ext.P3 notice and submitted that while issuing this notice, reply of one Eshaque Kalathingal was considered and giving all necessary details, the petitioner is informed that the tax effect is more than Rs.28 lakhs and it is proposed to impose a penalty of Rs.56,50,000/-(Rupees fifty six lakhs and fifty thousand only). Objections of the petitioner are invited by this notice.

I have considered the submissions so advanced. So far as the supply of documents by the respondent department is concerned, the reply notice at Ext.P2 is not mentioning any details about the documents sought for by the petitioner. It only mentions that documents under which the assessment was made against the WP(C).No.1777 OF 2021 4 father of the petitioner be supplied to the petitioner. This reply was to the notice at Ext.P1, in which the respondent department was not relying on any documents. On the contrary, the respondent department was requesting the petitioner to supply documents at serial Nos.1 to 8 enumerated in that notice. As such, on the pretext that the petitioner be supplied with the documents relied on by the respondent department, the petitioner cannot seek stay of the proceedings as prayed in the instant petition.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was not having any connection with the alleged timber business and as such, she is not supposed to be in possession of the documents sought for by the department.

Be that as it may, the matter is still at the notice stage and I deem it fit not to interfere in such matters which is just at the notice stage with the respondent department. If the petitioner desirous of seeking any documents from the respondent- department, she is free to make appropriate application by paying necessary charges, if any. The petitioner is also free to apply to the concerned authority to grant necessary adjournments for reply the notice at Ext.P3. If the petitioner makes such request, considering the fact that the petitioner is the legal heir of deceased Ibrahim,

In this view of the matter, needless to mention that if the department wants to rely on any documents other than the documents which were in possession of deceased Ibrahim, the same be supplied to the petitioner for fair adjudication of the notice proceedings at Ext.P3. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. A.M.BADAR ajt JUDGE