DOMINIC JOSEPH v. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Writ petition is disposed of with the above directions
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Apprehension of the petitioner is that the1st respondent may finalise the penalty proceedings asproposed without adverting to such documents and withoutaffording him an opportunity to substantiate that thealleged purchases are not made by the petitioner. I do notfind any basis for such an apprehension…
Judgment
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -W.P.(C)No. 32626 of 2009- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Dated this the 19th day of November, 2009J U D G M E N T1.Petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P1 to P6 noticesissued against him proposing for imposition of penaltyunder Section 67 (1) (b) as well as 25 (1) of the KeralaValue Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act). The penalty isproposed based on the allegation that the petitioner has notaccounted purchases worth Rs.9,92,111.35, effected fromM/s. Exide Industries and therefore the petitioner was notmaintaining true and correct books of accounts. The aboveallegation is raised on the basis of details collected from thereturns filed by M/s. Exide Industries Ltd.
According to the petitioner he is not a dealer ofthe 4th respondent M/s. Exide Industries Ltd. On the otherhand he is only a sub dealer of a dealer to 4th respondent, at Kottayam. But it is stated that there are other dealers ofthe 4th respondent functioning in the same name and style W.P.(C)No. 32626 of 2009-2-as “M/s. Battery House” and it so happened that TIN detailsof the petitioner was wrongly indicated by the4th respondent against sales effected to other dealersfunctioning under the same name and style. On the receiptof Exts.P1 to P6 the petitioner had produced variousdocuments obtained from the 4th respondent as evidencedfrom Exts.P7 to P11 in order to prove that the4th respondent has not in fact effected such sales to thepetitioner. But such sales were only made to the dealers ofthe 4th respondent who are functioning under the nameM/s. Battery House.
Operative part
Apprehension of the petitioner is that the1st respondent may finalise the penalty proceedings asproposed without adverting to such documents and withoutaffording him an opportunity to substantiate that thealleged purchases are not made by the petitioner. I do notfind any basis for such an apprehension, since relevantdocuments has already been submitted to the1st respondent. W.P.(C)No. 32626 of 2009-3-4.However, it is observed that before finalisingproceedings under Section 67 (1) (b) or under Section25 (1), the 1st respondent shall consider the objection raisedby the petitioner with advertance to the documentsproduced in support. The petitioners shall also be givenreasonable opportunity to substantiate such objections byproducing any further documents or by examining anypersons concerned. Writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGEshg/
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Writ petition is disposed of with the above directions
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
KeralaValue Added Tax Act, 2003.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 19 Nov 2009. The bench was C K ABDUL REHIM.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.