Disposed

Suganthi Stella Rani v. the Intelligence Officer

Kerala HC21 Dec 2011WP(C)/35428/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed of writ petition challenging proposal notice for penalty under Section 67(1) of KVAT Act. Court directed respondent to permit petitioner to take photocopies of seized records and offer opportunity to file objections and personal hearing before finalizing proceedings. Judgment to be produced for compliance.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent to permit petitioner to take photocopies of relevant seized records and offer opportunity to file objections and personal hearing before finalizing proceedings.

Suganthi Stella Rani Vs the Intelligence Officer — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/30TH AGRAHAYANA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 35428 of 2010 (C)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

SMT. SUGANTHI STELLA RANI, PROPRIETRIX, R.B. CHINESE FOOD PRODUCTS, AVENUE 5TH (41) PRIYADARSINI NAGAR, KONTHURUTHY, THEVARA, COCHIN - 13.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN

¶9

SMT.G.DEEPA

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.1, COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERRY AT ALUVA - 683 501.

¶12

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES KERALA, PUBLIC BUILDING, VIKAS BHAVAN.P.O., TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.

¶13

3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.

¶14

R1 TO R3 BY SRI.S.SUDHISH KUMAR, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-12-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

AMV

¶17

WP(C).No. 35428 of 2010 (C)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :

¶20

P1. : COPY OF THE SHOP INSPECTION REPORT DATED 01.06.2010.

¶21

P2. : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.08.2010 BY THE PETITIONER.

¶22

P3. : COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD.

¶23

P4. : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16.10.2010 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶24

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

AMV

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.

¶29

W.P.(c) No. 35428 OF 2010

¶30

DATED THIS THE 21^st DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

Exhibit P4 notice issued by the 1^st respondent proposing to impose penalty under Section 67 (1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) is under challenge in this writ petition. It is evident that the proposal notice was issued pursuant to an inspection conducted at the business places of the petitioner, and pursuant to seizure of records pertaining to the business activities. Contention of the petitioner is that he is disabled from filing effective objections to the proposal notice, because the entire records has been taken into custody by the 1^st respondent and since the seized records were not returned inspite of Ext.P2 request.

¶33

Learned Government Pleader on instruction submitted that, there is no difficulty in permitting the petitioner to take photocopies of whatever relevant documents required, from the seized records. Therefore, I am of the view that if a direction is issued to the

¶34

W.P.(c) No.35428/2010

¶35

-2-

¶36

1^st respondent permitting the petitioner to take photocopies of the relevant records and if an opportunity is afford to file objections before finalising the proceedings, that will suffice to meet the ends of justice.

¶37

Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to issue intimation to the petitioner specifying the date on which he may be permitted to take photocopies of the relevant records. The petitioner shall be offered opportunity to file objection to the proposal, after permitting to take photocopies of the documents as directed above. Needless to say that before finalising the proceedings the petitioner shall also be given an opportunity of personal hearing.

¶38

The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 1^st respondent for proper compliance.

¶39

Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.

¶40

AMG

¶41

True copy

¶42

P.A to Judge

Suganthi Stella Rani v. the Intelligence Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suganthi Stella Rani v. the Intelligence Officer

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

Dr.Ganesh Das Vs the Chairman/Convenor of the Selection C

George Christom & Another Vs the Executive Engineer & Others

M/S.Central Advertising Agency and Anr. Vs the State of Kerala and Others

C.M.Bose Vs the Recovery Officer

Binoy Vs the Secretary to Government

C.P.Jojo Vs State of Kerala