U WE COATS Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WC)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is an assessee under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (the Act) on the rolls of the first respondent. It is stated by the petitioner that it is a partnership firm and the firm stopped its business during 2012, after intimating the same to the first respondent. It is also stated that by the petitioner that the partners of the petitioner are at present working abroad. Exts.P1 and P1(a) are orders imposing penalty on the petitioner under the Act. Exts.P1 and P1(a) orders have been issued ex-parte. Later, based on Exts.P1 and P1(a) penalty orders, assessments of the petitioner for the years 2011-12 and 2012-13 were also revised in terms of Exts.P3 and P3(a) orders. The petitioner challenged Exts.P1 and P1(a) penalty orders directly before this Court in a writ petition. This Court did not entertain the said writ petition. Petitioner challenged the decision in the writ petition in Writ Appeal No.340/2017. The said writ appeal was allowed in terms of Ext.P2 judgment directing the competent authority to pass fresh orders on the proposal for imposing penalty, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing on terms. It is stated by the petitioner that thereafter in respect of one year, proceedings initiated against the petitioner for imposing penalty has been completed accepting the application preferred by the petitioner for compounding. As regards the remaining year, the proceedings are stated to be pending. The challenge in this petition is against Exts.P3 and P3(a) orders revising the assessment for the relevant years. According to the petitioner, in the light of Ext.P2 judgment, the petitioner is entitled to a similar treatment. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard in the writ petition.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

(3.) Paragraphs 4 and 5 of Ext.P2 judgment read thus :