9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 1059X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner (W.P. (C) No. 9789 of 2009) has been sought to be withdrawn by filing a memo dated January 31, 2010. Obviously, in W.P. (C) No. 3500 of 2010, the steps taken by the respondents, particularly the fifth respondent, who was the first respondent in the earlier writ petition and the consequential proceedings have been subjected to challenge, contending that the documents seized from the petitioner were not returned and hence that the petitioner was virtually prevented from submitting any effective reply to the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner. It is also contended that most of the copies of the documents served to the petitioner are not legible and hence that interference of the court is very much necessary. When the W.P. (C) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmission is granted and W.P. (C) No. 9789 of 2009 is dismissed as withdrawn. Coming to the sequence of events as described in W.P. (C) No. 3500 of 2010, it is revealed that, on November 29, 2007, the respondents conducted a surprise inspection leading to issuance of exhibit P2 series of "shop inspection reports". Various documents were also seized from the premises of the petitioner by issuing exhibit P3 receipt. Subsequently, the petitioner filed exhibit P4 representation to return the documents, which however was not acceded to by the fifth respondent, who issued exhibit P5 asking the petitioner to produce all the relevant books of account. Subsequently, exhibits P6, P7 and P8 series notices were issued by the fifth respondent proposing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apani, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the course and conduct being pursued by the fifth respondent is very much vindictive and only to harass the petitioner. The learned senior counsel further submits that, even the shop inspection and the reports as borne by exhibit P2 series, were without complying with the statutory requirements, particularly section 44 of the KVAT Act, section 28 of the KGST Act and section 13 of the Kerala Taxes on Luxuries Act. It is also the argument of the learned senior counsel that the concerned respondents have not given effect to the direction given by this court as per exhibit P16 interim order, so as to supply "legible copies" of the relevant documents. It is further stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned senior counsel with reference to the "proviso" to section 67(1)(l) submits that the penalty proceedings have to be finalized within a period of "one" year, in the manner as provided thereunder. The date of inspection in the premises as borne by exhibits P2 series "SIRs" being November 29, 2007, the impugned orders (exhibit P24 series and P25 series) passed in June and July 2009 are stated as barred by limitation. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, with specific reference to the amendment brought about by virtue of the Finance Act 2009, submits that the period stipulated under the above "proviso", has been raised from one year to "three years" with effect from April 1, 2005. This by itself show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellate authority, i.e., the seventh respondent, by filing exhibits P26/P27/P28 series proceedings, along with P29 and exhibit P30 petitions for stay and it was thereafter, that the petitioner filed the present writ petition, seeking to have the matter considered and adjudicated by this court. As he has already availed the statutory remedy, this court does not propose to go into the merits, exercising the discretionary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India and finds that the matter requires to be considered and finalised by the appellate authority. The petitioner is very much at liberty to raise all the contentions including those projected in this writ petition. Accordingly, interference is declined in the writ pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Obviously, the matter is pending consideration in appeals filed before the seventh respondent. The petitioner has also filed petitions to condone the delay in filing the appeals and necessary I.As for stay as well. In the said circumstances, the seventh respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders, on exhibit P29 series of petitions to condone the delay in filing exhibits P26/P27/P28 appeals and also in exhibits P29 and P30 petitions for stay in accordance with law. Appropriate orders shall be passed thereon, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, it is made clear that till such app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
