RANJINI EYE CARE Vs. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this court challenging exhibit P5 order imposing penalty, raising many a ground including that no proper opportunity of hearing was obtained and for wrongly holding that no objections were submitted from the part of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on March 10, 2008 notice imposing penalty was issued, in response to which, objection was submitted on March 27, 2008, when another notice was issued on December 21, 2009. Thereafter the petitioner submitted an application for adjournment on December 31, 2009, despite which the impugned order was passed on February 8, 2010, which is not correct or sustainable; submits the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submits with reference to the contents of the statement filed and also based on the materials on record that the petitioner is not a registered dealer and that, on verification of the bills issued by the petitioner and other related documents, it is evident that the petitioner had supplied "medicines" and "intra occular lenses" for huge amounts and despite crossing the turnover limit, the petitioner had neither taken registration under the Act nor remitted the tax due on the turnover of the "medicines" and "intra occular lenses".

(3.) In response to the notice imposing penalty; the petitioner filed an application on December 31, 2009 and requested to grant 10 days' time to submit objections. It is further stated in para 3 of the statement that the request was granted and the case was adjourned to January 12, 2010 and this was acknowledged by the representative of the petitioner. A true copy of the application filed by the petitioner has been produced as annexure R1(a). However, the petitioner did not choose to file any objection, nor did file any further adjournment application. In the said circumstances the proceedings were finalized, passing final orders as borne by exhibit P5. It is also stated that the matter is squarely covered by the decisions P.R.S. Hospital v. State of Kerala,2003 1 KTR 176 Reported as Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church v. Sales Tax Officer, 2004 135 STC 224 and Comtrust Eye Hospital v. Addl. Sales Tax Officer,2009 20 VST 532