The High Court · 2025

M/S. TAJ GARDEN RETREAT KUMARAKOM, (A UNIT OF TAJ KERALA HOTELS AND RESORTS LIMITED), KOTTAYAM - 686 566, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SHRI.MOHAN JAYARAMAN, (COMPANY SECRETARY AND CFO). BY ADV JOSE JACOB RESPONDENTS: 1 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, COMMERCIAL TAXES, GOVT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM, KERALA. STATE TAX OFFICER (INTELLIGENCE) STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, SQUAD NO.V, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, SASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM- 686 001. BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DHEERAJ A.S. ,GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 2008 OF 2019 2 2025:KER:26332 JUDGMENT The petitioner is stated to be a hotelier registered under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (‘Act’ for short). The petitioner was served with Ext.P1 notice by the 2 nd respondent under Section 45A of the Act imposing a penalty amounting to Rs.7,11,418/-, alleging filing of incorrect returns in the books of account. Aggrieved by the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing Ext.P1 notice, beyond the time prescribed under Section 17(6) of the Act, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, which states as follows: “3. It is submitted that, M/s. Vivanata by Taj, Kumarakom, Kottayam (herein after mentioned as dealer) is a dealer in IMFL registered under KGST Act bearing R.C. No.21010772. The Intelligence Squad V, Department of Commercial Taxes, Kottayam has inspected the place of business on 08.03.2012 and prepared SIR No.492984 incorporating the complete physical stock of IMFL and FMFL. Certain records relating to the similar transaction of the dealer were also recovered from the BAR at the time of inspection and it was also recorded in the SIR. True copy of the WP(C) NO. 2008 OF 2019 3 2025:KER:26332 Shop Inspection Report is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R2(a). A notice was issued to the person in charge of the BAR for the production of all books of account for the year 2011-12 up to 08.03.2012, but the dealer has failed to produce the above. 4. It is submitted that, subsequently, the books of accounts for the year 2011-12 were called for vide notice dated 16.03.2012 against this notice the dealer filed adjournment letter dated 03.04.2012. True copy of the Form 17 notice dated 16.03.2012 and true copy of reply dated 03.04.2012 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R2(b) & Exhibit R2(c). Subsequently several notices were issued to the dealer for producing the books of accounts, but the dealer sought adjournment each time. True copy of Form 17 dated 13.04.2012 and adjournment letter of the petitioner is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R2(d) & Exhibit R2(e). and True copy Form 17 notice at 01.02.2013 and 06.10.2015 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R2(f) & Exhibit R2(g). Finally the case was posted on 11.10.2018 for production of books of accounts. True copy of Form 50 notice dated 29.09.2018 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R2(h). Aggrieved by this notice dealer filed a letter dated 11.10.2018 as follows, "we are in respect of your notice to appear in your good office on 11.10.2018. In this regard would like to bring to your attention that your had called us to produce the documents for the year 2011-12. Would like to bring to your attention that the said year is barred by the period of limitation, we are unable to understand as to why the Notice has been served by your good office now when the year of assessment is beyond five years. True copy of the reply dated 11.10.2018 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R2 (i).”

3. A reading of the above shows that on receiving WP(C) NO. 2008 OF 2019 4 2025:KER:26332 notice dated 16.03.2012 calling for books of accounts for the year 2011-12, the petitioner had given letters seeking adjournment, which is evident from Exts.R2(b) and R2(c).

4. In view of the dispute raised by the respondents, which calls for an adjudication based on evidence, I do not think this is a fit case for this court to consider the plea of limitation in a writ petition, more so when there is a dispute as to whether the petitioner received the notice prior to the time limit, in view of the statement and documents filed by the respondents.

5. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to avail statutory remedy against Ext.P1 notice. The time spent before this Court from

22.01.2019 till today will be excluded for the purpose of counting limitation for availing the statutory remedy. All contentions of the petitioners are left open. WP(C) NO. 2008 OF 2019 5 2025:KER:26332 Subject to the above, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE MC/27.3 WP(C) NO. 2008 OF 2019 6 2025:KER:26332 PETITIONER EXHIBITS APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2008/2019 EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 45 A OF THE KERALA GENERAL SALES TAX ACT, 1963. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTING NOTICE. EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 UNDER SECTION 17A OF THE KERALA TAX ON LUXURIES ACT, 1976 TRUE COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 TRUE COPY OF EXTENSION ORDER PASSED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R2(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOP INSPECTION REPORT EXHIBIT R2(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 17 NOTICE DTED 16.3.2012. EXHIBIT R2(C) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 3.4.2012 EXHIBIT R2(D) TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 17 DATED 13.4.2012 EXHIBIT R2(E) TRUE COPY OF THE ADJOURNMENT LETTER OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT R2(F) TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 17 NOTICE DATED 1.2.2013. EXHIBIT R2(G) TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 17 NOTICE DATED 6.10.2015 EXHIBIT R2(H) TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 50 NOTICE DATED 29.09.2018 EXHIBIT R2(I) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 11.10.2018