9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his turnover, and also Ext.P8 notice, issued under Section 45A of the KGST Act proposing the imposition of a penalty in an amount which is double the amount of tax allegedly sought to be evaded for the assessment year 2001-02. 2. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company and a registered dealer on the files of the 1st respondent for the purposes of the KGST Act as also the KVAT Act. It owns a hatchery on owned land, and poultry farms on leased lands, within the State of Kerala. The issue involved in the instant case revolves around the availability of an exemption to hatcheries and poultry farms, within the State, for the period from 1.4.2000 to 4.1.2002, which is the period covered by Exts.P7 and P8 notices issued to the petitioner. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner was concerned, had to be determined in terms of S.R.O.291/2000, as modified by S.R.O.877/2000. In Exts.P7 and P8 notices that have been issued to the petitioner by the 2nd and 1st respondents respectively, the basis for the issuance of the said notices appears to be the contention that the petitioner is not rearing chicken within the State but is actually engaged in contract farming by utilising poultry farmers in the State. This, according to the respondents, would not entitle the petitioner to the benefit of the notification S.R.O.291/2000 as modified by S.R.O.877/2000. No doubt, the petitioner would contend that the said assumption of facts by the respondents is wholly misplaced in view of the orders already passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Constitution of India except, in exceptional circumstances such as when it is established that the notices have been issued by authorities acting without any jurisdiction or in excess of their jurisdiction. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner does not have a contention that the notices are vitiated by any jurisdictional error. The only contention of the petitioner is that, in view of the fact that earlier assessments pertaining to the petitioner were already completed and finalised on the basis of certain findings of facts, which have not changed even in the year under consideration, there was no justification for the respondents to issue repeated notices to the petitioner, in a mechanical manner. It is also pointed out th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication, is one that has to be resolved by the statutory authorities, at first instance, after perusing the materials produced by the assessee to substantiate his contentions regarding the existence of those facts. That is not an exercise that can be done by the High Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I am therefore not persuaded to interfere with Exts.P7 and P8 notices that are impugned by the petitioner in the present writ petition. While on the subject, I might note that the apprehension of the petitioner is only with regard to a possible delay, that may result from a prolonged agitation of the dispute, which, according to the petitioner, has already been resolved in his favour in the previous assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
