Mangalam Gold vs. The Sale Tax Officer

JUDGMENT The challenge in the Writ Petition is against Ext.P6 penalty order passed in relation to the petitioner under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act for the assessment year 2017-2018. The grievance of the petitioner in the Writ Petition is essentially that, before passing Ext.P6 order, he was not given an effective opportunity of hearing by the respondent. On a perusal of Ext.P6 order, however, I find that the petitioner was served a notice proposing penalty, and he was also given an opportunity to submit his response to the said notice, and thereafter, an opportunity for hearing. It would appear that in response to the opportunity for hearing granted on 18.07.2019, the petitioner filed a reply on the said date requesting for adjournment for producing the books of account. Taking note of his request he was given an opportunity to produce the books of account on 16.08.2019 through a notice that was sent to his address. The said notice however was returned by the postal authority with endorsement “addressee left”. Thereafter, the petitioner was contacted over the telephone, when he again sought two weeks time for producing the books of account. It is stated that thereafter the petitioner did not produce the books of account during the time that he had sought. Under those circumstances, the respondent proceeded to pass Ext.P6 order confirming the penalty on the petitioner. On a consideration of the facts as reflected in Ext.P6 order, I do not find it to be a case that warrants an interference with the said order in these proceedings under Article

WP(C).No.33173 OF 2019(V) 3 226 of the Constitution of India. The averment in the Writ Petition that there was no effective opportunity of hearing extended to the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of the specific findings, with regard to the opportunities granted to the petitioner, in Ext.P6 order. I also find that, at any rate, the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by way of an appeal before the appellate authority. I therefore dismiss the Writ Petition in its challenge against Ext.P6 order as I do not find the said order as vitiated by any juri ictional error or non-compliance with the rules of natural justice, and relegate the petitioner to his alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the appellate authority. Taking note of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he would require sometime to move the appellate authority, I direct that recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P6 order shall be kept in abeyance for a period of three weeks so as to enable the petitioner to move the appellate authority, in the meanwhile. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of this judgment, before the respondent, for further action. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE mns

WP(C).No.33173 OF 2019(V) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE DEED OF RETIREMENT DATED 8.6.2018 EXHIBIT P2OF THE RE-CONSTITUTED DEED OF PARTNERSHIP DATED 9.6.2018 EXHIBIT P3OF THE NOTICE DATED 4.7.2019 UNDER SECTION 67 OF THE KVAT ACT,2003 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4OF THE LETTER DATED 24.7.2019 TO THE CONCERNED SALES TAX OFFICER EXHIBIT P5OF THE SAID LETTER DATED 18.7.2019 SUBMITTED TO THE RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6OF THE SAID ORDER DATED 16.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7OF THE TAX INVOICE IN FORM NO 8J DATED 10.4.2017 EXHIBIT P8OF THE TAX INVOICE DATED 3.5.2017 EXHIBIT P9OF THE TAX INVOICE DATED 29.4.2017 ISSUED BY M/S JOSE ALUKKAS IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P10OF THE TAX INVOICE DATED 11.5.2017 ISSUED BY M/S JOSE ALUKKAS EXHIBIT P11OF THE RETURNS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FROM APRIL 2017 EXHIBIT P12OF THE RETURNS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FORM MAY 2017 EXHIBIT P13OF THE RETURNS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FROM JUNE 2017 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL //// P.A TO JUDGE