SREEJITH Vs. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who has succeeded to the business after death of his father is challenging the notice issued by the first respondent to produce books of account for verification and simultaneous notice proposing penalty if books are not produced and proved correct with reference to business transactions noticed on inspection held during the lifetime of the petitioner's father. The petitioner's father was carrying on business after taking registration under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The business premises was inspected by the Intelligence Squad of Sales Tax Department on November 5, 1998 and shop inspection report was prepared. Even though the notice was issued for production of books of account during lifetime of the petitioner's father, he did not produce the books of account. The petitioner's father died on March 9, 1999, and thereafter notice was issued in the name of the business concern calling for books of account to compare the same with the data gathered during shop inspection and recorded in the shop inspection report.

(2.) It is clear from exhibit P1 that in spite of notice issued earlier, books were not produced either by the registered dealer or by the legal heir, namely, the petitioner who succeeded to the business after death of his father. Therefore, penalty was simultaneously proposed after drawing inference of evasion as stated in exhibit P1 notice, if petitioner refuses to produce books of account. This notice, is understood as a penalty notice by the petitioner, and accordingly the petitioner has challenged the same on the ground that the first respondent is not authorised to levy penalty under Section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act on the legal heir after the death of the registered dealer.

(3.) I heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and the Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.