P&P RUBBER CO Vs. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is aggrieved by exhibit P16 order passed by the first respondent. This is an order imposing a penalty under section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. Exhibit P16 has a chequered history. Against the earlier order of penalty imposed by the second respondent, the petitioner had pursued the matter up to the level of revision before the Commissioner. That revision was dismissed as per exhibit P11. Though it is stated as dismissal, it is actually seen that the Commissioner had made it clear that the case was one of open remand before the original authority, interpreting the orders passed by the first revisional authority. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of exhibit P11 order makes the position clear, which read as follows :

(2.) THEREFORE , it can be seen that the Commissioner had directed the original authority to bear in mind certain crucial aspects while passing orders, including the fact that rubber is taxable only at the last purchase point within the State. Pursuant to exhibit P11, the petitioner had submitted before the second respondent a note as per exhibit P12. It is stated in the original petition that the second respondent had heard the petitioner and according to his information the second respondent had dropped the proceedings. However, as per exhibit P13, the first respondent issued another notice dated October 30, 1995. Petitioner filed exhibit P14 reply stating that the second respondent had once dropped the proceedings and in any case if fresh orders are proposed to be passed by the first respondent, it will be done only as per the clarifications/directions contained in exhibit P11 order. As per exhibit P15 petitioner also made a request for copies of certain documents. Dr. Mohammed Kutty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, contends that the petitioner is entitled to get back the documents seized and only then the petitioner will be in a position to take a proper defence.

(3.) I am afraid the contentions of the learned Government Pleader cannot be appreciated. True, the petitioner has got a statutory remedy. But it has to be seen that the petitioner had gone through the ladder once and this is the second round. As already observed above, the records seized had not been returned to the petitioner. The crucial aspects directed to be borne in mind by the Commissioner in exhibit P11 had not been adverted to at all. All that apart though the petitioner had specifically pointed out to the first respondent that the second respondent had once closed the proceedings, there is no reference to that contention either. If the penalty proceedings had once been dropped, whether it is competent for the first respondent to initiate the very same proceedings de novo is also a question to be considered by the first respondent. Bereft of all these crucial aspects, it cannot be said that exhibit P16 is a reasonable order. I set aside exhibit P16. However, I make it clear that it will be open to the first respondent to issue fresh notice, if required, after considering the case of the petitioner in the light of the observations contained in this judgment and then pass fresh orders in accordance with law.