RAHUMATH.S. Vs. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER SQUAD NO.1

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Exts.P21, P21(a) and 21(b) orders passed by the respondents confirming demands of penalty under the KVAT Act, pursuant to a detection of suppressed turn over for the assessment years 2014-2015 to 2016-2017. In the writ petition the challenge against Exts.P21,P21(a) and P21(b) orders is premised primarily on the contention that, information collected from the premises of the petitioner, and stored on a pen drive, had been sent to C-DAC for decoding and the resultant documents that were received from C-DAC, when made available to the petitioner, was voluminous and the petitioner did not get sufficient time to go through the said material for submitting a proper reply before the respondents. The specific grounds in the writ petition state that sufficient time was not granted to the petitioner to prefer an effective reply to the notices issued to her, and it is therefore contended that Ext.P21 series of orders were passed in gross violation of the rules of natural justice.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

(3.) On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, and on a perusal of Ext.P21 series of orders, which are impugned in the writ petition, I find that there is a detailed discussion with regard to the opportunities granted to the petitioner for preferring an effective reply to the notice served on her. The discussion is contained in internal pages 14 to 23 of Ext.P21, which in the writ petition is to be found between running pages 171 and 180. In view of the specific finding with regard to the opportunities granted to the petitioner for countering the averments in the notice served on her, I am of the view that the contention that no effective opportunity was given to the petitioner to reply to the notices issued to her in connection with the penalty orders ultimately passed, is devoid of merit and cannot be sustained. Resultantly, I dismiss the writ petition in its challenge against the penalty orders without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the appellate authority in a challenge against the said penalty orders.