Kallat Builders PVT. LTD. vs. The State Of Kerala - Kerala High Court, 28 March 2019

Heard together (2 matters)

WA.No. 940 of 2019

WP(C) 4889/2019

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI THURSDAY ,THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1941 WA.No. 940 of 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 4889/2019 of HIGHCOURT DATED 19.02.2019 APPELLANT/PETITIONER: KALLAT BUILDERS PVT. LTD. KALPETTA, WAYANAD, PIN:673 122 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. TAHIR KALLAT BY ADVS. SRI.SOJAN MATHEW SMT.K.J.VALSALA KUMARI SRI.K.N.KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI SRI.V.C.CHARLY RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 2 THE STATE TAX OFFICER (INTELLIGENCE) SQUAD NO.III, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD, PIN:673 121 SR GP. SRI MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: WA.No. 940 of 2019 2 C.K.ABDUL REHIM & R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JJ. -------------------------------------------- W.A. No. 940 of 2019 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of March, 2019

JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim,J The petitioner in WP(C) No. 4889/2019 is challenging the judgment dismissing the writ petition, dated 19.02.2019. The respondents herein are the respondents in the writ petition.

Heard the counsel for the appellant and the Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

An order imposing penalty under provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act ('KVAT Act', for short) was challenged in the writ petition, without resorting to the statutory remedy of appeal provided. The learned Single Judge found that, issuance of notice calling for production of the books of accounts, even after issuance the proposal for imposition of penalty, would satisfy the requirements for completing the proceedings for imposing the penalty. It was categorically found that, the appellant had submitted the records subsequent to the proposal notice. The contention that the successor officer has not specifically called for the records afterwards, was found to be not fatal to the proceedings, in view of the notice issued under Section 95 of the KVAT Act. With respect to the contentions raised alleging failure to consider the materials in a proper perspective, the learned Single Judge found that, those are contentions which can be agitated by the appellant in a properly constituted statutory appeal. Having found that there is no circumstances warranting interference of this Court by invoking the discretionary juri iction, the appellant was relegated to the remedy of statutory appeal, which is more efficacious.

Even though counsel for the appellant raised contentions with respect to alleged violation of principles of natural justice, we are not persuaded to accept those contentions, considering the detailed order passed by the authority concerned on giving adequate opportunity to the appellant. Hence we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in relegating the appellant to seek the alternate statutory remedy, which is more efficacious.

Under the above mentioned circumstances, the writ appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

However, we make it clear that if the appellant chooses to avail the appellate remedy, the Appellate Authority concerned shall exclude the time spent by the appellant in prosecuting the writ petition as well this writ appeal, while computing the period of limitation. K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE lsn