HALEEL RAHIMAN Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal is against the judgment dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner. Challenge was against Exts.P1 and P1(a) composite pre assessment notices issued proposing assessment under section 25(1) and levy of penalty under section 25(3) read with section 67 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act), for the years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 respectively. On failure of the appellant to respond to the said notices, Exts. P3 and P3 (a) orders of assessment were issued confirming the proposal, completing the assessment and imposing penalty. Exts.P3 and P3(a) orders were also challenged in the writ petition.

(2.) While dismissing the writ petition, the learned Judge recorded that the appellant wanted to avail statutory remedy of appeal against Exts. P3 and P3 (a). Hence it was directed that if the petitioner files appeals against those orders within 10 days of the judgment, that will be entertained ignoring the delay involved.

(3.) Before the Single Judge it was contended that the power to impose penalty under section 25(3) read with section 67 can be exercised only on completion of the assessment and only if the assessing authority is satisfied that the escape of turn over was due to wilful non-disclosure by the assessee. According to the appellant, it is possible only on completion of the assessment. The simultaneous proposal made under Exts.P1 and P1(a) are not sustainable, is the contention. Learned Judge rejected the contention observing that the assessing authority had prima facie come to the conclusion that there has been wilful non disclosure . In such case the Act does not contain any bar in issuing either a composite notice or a composite order, is the finding. It is aggrieved by the said finding this appeal is preferred.