Dismissed

M/S.Gnanam Enterprises v. the Intelligence Officer & Others

Kerala HC19 Mar 2010WP(C)/9270/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an order imposing penalty under KVAT Act alleging denial of hearing opportunity. The court found the petitioner appeared for hearing, took copies, but failed to avail personal hearing or file objection timely. Interference declined; W.P dismissed without adjudication on merits as appeal lies before concerned authority.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed. The Court expressly states it has not expressed anything on the merits.

M/S.Gnanam Enterprises Vs the Intelligence Officer… — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 9270 of 2010(G)

¶6

-----------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

-------------------------

¶9

M/S.GNANAM ENTERPRISES, 38/731-A, MARKET ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, COCHIN - 20, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETRESS SIVAKAMI SUNDARI.S.

¶10

BY ADV. MR.K.J.ABRAHAM

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

----------------------------

¶13

1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.III, COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERY AT MINI CIVIL STATION, ALUVA.

¶14

2. THE INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KAKKANAD.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K.GOVINDAN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Kss

¶18

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J

¶19

W.P(C) No.9270 of 2010-G

¶20

Dated this the 19^th day of March, 2010.

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

The petitioner is challenging Ext.P9 order passed by the first respondent imposing penalty under Section 67(1) of the KVAT Act. The grievance projected by the petitioner is that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing, which is stated as the reason for approaching this Court directly, invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India, instead of proceeding with the matter by way of appeal.

¶23

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

¶24

On going through the materials on record, it is clearly revealed from the observation made in Ext.P9 order passed by the first respondent, that the notice under Section 67(1) was served on the petitioner on 13.3.2009, asking the petitioner to appear for personal hearing on 18.3.2009. It is also stated that, considering the request dtd.9.3.2009, the petitioner was allowed to take photocopy of the relevant records and that the petitioner had in fact

¶25

W.P(C) No.9270 of 2010-G 2

¶26

taken the xerox copies of the entire records on 13.3.2009. It has also been observed in Ext.P9 that the dealer failed to avail the opportunity of personal hearing on 18.3.2009 and did not file a statement of objection within the time as prescribed in the notice. However, the petitioner filed a statement of objection on 31.3.2009, as noted in the impugned order itself. It was thereafter that the merits of the case were discussed by the first respondent and Ext.P9 order was passed fixing the liability upon the petitioner. In the said statement, the petitioner had obviously not sought for any opportunity of personal hearing. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the facts and figures discussed by the respondent while passing Ext.P9. If the petitioner is aggrieved in any manner, it is for him to challenge the impugned order by filing the appeal before the concerned authority. This being the position, interference is declined. The Writ Petition is dismissed. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits.

¶27

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶28

M/S.Gnanam Enterprises v. the Intelligence Officer & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Gnanam Enterprises v. the Intelligence Officer & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.K.Balakrishnan Vs Susan Jacob

Lissy Jacob Vs Chief Manager and Authorized Officer and

Venu K.Nair Vs Rto, Pathanamthitta and 3 Others

Rajeev.R. Vs Federal Bank

P.Sankaranarayanan Nair Vs District Collector and Others

Joy Daniel Vs Authorized Officer (Sarfaesi Act) & Ors.