LAWS(KER)-2012-7-251

CHACKO DAVID Vs. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER COMMERCIAL TAXES

Decided On July 16, 2012
CHACKO DAVID Appellant
V/S
INTELLIGENCE OFFICER COMMERCIAL TAXES Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is challenging Ext.P5 order passed by the first respondent imposing penalty under Sectin 67(1) of the KVAT Act. The case of the petitioner is that, the proceedings have been fianlised without any regard to the rule of law, in so far as, no effective opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner, before finalising the proceedings. It is also stated that the observation in Ext.P5 that the petitioner did not avail the chance for personal hearing on 9.4.2012, but for filing the objection on that date; thus finalising the proceedings is not at all correct, and that the impugned order was passed more than one month thereafter on 15.05.2012. It is asserted that, the petitioner was never asked to appear for personal hearing on 9.4.2012, but was asked only to file the statement of objections as discernible from Ext.P3 notice dated 28.03.2012 and that this requirement was admittedly complied with.

(2.) LEARNED Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits with reference to the statement filed that, the petitioner was given several opportunities and as per Ext.P2 reply dated 17/03/2012, the petitioner had sought for one more opportunity. It is pointed out that the petitioner was contacted "over his mobile number", when he submitted that his lawyer was out of station on '9.4.2012'. When the first respondent contends on one hand that the petitioner did not appear for personal hearing, despite the opportunity given on 9.4.2012, on the very next breath, the same respondent says that, on contacting the petitioner on mobile phone, he had informed that his lawyer was out of station on 9.4.2012. The stand taken by the respondents does not reconcile with each other. The first respondent having been told of the inconvenience of the lawyer on 9.4.2012, why the request was not considered, is not discernible from Ext.P5.

(3.) IN the said circumstances, this Court finds that the petitioner, who has complied with Ext.P3 notice by submitting the statement of objections on 9.4.2012, was never given an effective opportunity of hearing and as such the matter requires to be reconsidered by the first respondent. Accordingly, Ext.P5 is set aside and the first respondent is directed to finalise the proceedings afresh, issuing a notice of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. All further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7 shall be kept in abeyance till such time. Writ petition is allowed to the said extent. No cost.