Skaria P.Thomas vs. The State Tax Officer (Intelligence) - Kerala High Court, 12 February 2019

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU TUESDAY ,THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 23RD MAGHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 2954 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: SKARIA P.THOMAS,AGED 58 YEARS SON OF PJ SKARIA,PUNNATHANATH HOUSE KOOTHATTUKULAM PO ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686 662. BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SMT.K.S.SMITHA SMT.T.T.SHANIBA SRI.M.V.VIPINDAS SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER (INTELLIGENCE) KERALA GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT SQUAD NO.II, MATTANCHERRY AT KARUKUTTY ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 002. 2 THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES SQUAD NO.II,MATTANCHERRY AT KARUKKUTTY ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 002. 3 THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICE MUVATTUPUZHA 686 669. GP DR. THUSHARA JAMES. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 2954 of 2019 2

JUDGMENT The petitioner, a registered dealer under the KVAT Act, suffered the Ext.P4 penalty order under Section 67(1) of the KVAT Act. Assailing that, he has filed this Writ Petition.

Besides advancing argument on merits, the petitioner's counsel submits that initially one particular Intelligence Officer—Sri K.P.Kumaran—heard the petitioner, but another officer—Sri V.K.Abdul Rahim—rendered the Ext.P4 order. According to him, the Ext. P4 order suffers from incurable procedural latches.

In response, the Government Pleader, on the other hand, has contended that it is Sri K.P.Kumaran himself that has heard the matter and, later, rendered the Ext. P4 order. Faced with the name of Sri V.K.Abdul Rahim at the top of the Ext.P4 order, the learned Government Pleader tries to explain it away by saying that it is a typographical mistake. Had it been so, the authorities would have issued by now a corrected copy. I also wonder whether the authorities could take such stand concerning a quasi judicial order. At any rate, the law is well established, as has been held in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation1 and Gullapalli Nageswwara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh2, that the authority who hears the matter alone must decide. I, therefore, set aside the Ext.P4 on the technical ground and remand the matter to the Intelligence Officer concerned for fresh adjudication. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE 1 AIR 1959 SC 308 2 AIR 1969 SC 1376 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE INSPECTION REPORT DATED 11/12/2015. EXHIBIT P2OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 67 (1) OF THE KVAT ACT DATED 19/11/2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3OF THE COVERING LETTER ALONG WITH WHICH THE PETITIONER PRODUCED HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS DEMANDED IN EXHIBIT P2. EXHIBIT P4OF THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED UNDER S.67(1) (I) OF THE KVAT ACT DATED 13/12/2018 AND RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER ON 19/12/2018. EXHIBIT P5OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 13/12/2018 ISSUED IN FORM NO.12 UNDER RULES 22,38,52,53,&55 OF THE KVAT RULES 2005.