C MOHAMMED ASHRAF Vs. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is challenging Ext.P8 order passed by the first respondent imposing penalty upon the petitioner under Section 67(1) of the KVAT Act. The sequence of events as narrated in the writ petition shows that there was a Shop Inspection at the premises of the petitioner on 31.01.2012, as borne Ext.P1 and the petitioner was required to produce the 'books of accounts' on 22.02.2012. The petitioner however did not comply with the requirement and submitted Ext.P2 application on the previous day, stating that he was having the ailment of 'back ache' and 'high B.P.' and as such, required to have bed rest. It was accordingly, that 'one' months' time was sought for to produce the 'books of accounts'.

(2.) IT is seen that the concerned respondent adjourned the matter. Later, Ext.P3 notice was issued under Section 67(1) of the KVAT Act on 14.03.2012, asking the petitioner to produce the 'books of accounts' and such other materials. In response to the notice, the petitioner preferred Ext.P4 reply dated 20.03.2012 referring to the very same ailments and pointing out that the petitioner was still undergoing bed rest. Accordingly, the petitioner sought for further 'four weeks' to produce the 'books of accounts'.

(3.) AFTER going through the sequence of events and contents of the documents produced before this Court, this Court finds that, this is not a fit case to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the said circumstances, interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed; however, without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P8, by availing the statutory remedy in accordance with the relevant provisions of law.