9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. The respondents herein are the respondents in the writ petition. 2. Exts.P5, P5(a) and P5(b) orders imposing penalty under Section 67(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act ('the KVAT Act' for short) with respect to the years 2011-12,2012-13 and 2013-14 were under challenge in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge found that the main argument of the appellant was that, he was not given an opportunity to raise any objections and to produce the documents, after issuance of the proposal for imposing penalty; and that the orders imposing penalty were issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. But on an evaluation of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge had found th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt and the same was allowed. But they failed to turn up. Therefore the Officer, who had imposed penalty, made verification of the complete materials recovered at the time of inspection and arrived at a prima facie conclusion that the assessee had failed to maintain complete books of accounts in the regular course of business and the turnover disclosed was not true and complete. Alleging that the assessee had violated the statutory provisions of the KVAT Act in failing to maintain complete and correct books of accounts and attempted to deflate the sales turnover with malafide intention to evade payment of tax, the penalty was proposed. In Ext.P2 proposal notice, the assessee was directed to file objection if any against the proposal, within ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed under Section 67(1) of the KVAT Act, the appellant had requested to issue copies of all the recoveries and also requested two weeks time. It is also mentioned that the appellant had obtained all the necessary copies of the recoveries, during May 2018 itself. With respect to the opportunities afforded to the appellant, detailed discussion was made by the original authority in paragraph 13 of the order imposing penalty, which is extracted hereunder: "The reply furnished by the dealer is analysed meticulously. Notice U/s 67(1) of KVAT Act was served to the dealer on 13.04.2018. The dealer requested to issue the copies of all recoveries vide letter dated 28.04.2018 and requested two weeks time. The request was considered and the date of h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bjections available against the orders imposing penalty, before the Appellate Authority. If the appellant chooses to avail the remedy of the appeal, it is needless to observe that, the Appellate Authority shall consider all the objections, untrammelled by any of the observations contained in this judgment herein above. 7. Since we do not find any illegality, error or impropriety in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the writ appeal fails. Consequently, the same is hereby dismissed. If the appellant chooses to avail the remedy of the appeal, the Appellate Authority shall take into consideration of the time spent by the appellant in prosecuting the writ petition as well as the writ appeal, while considering the question of limitati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
