Allowed

V.Aboobaker Siddik v. Intelligence Officer

Kerala HC16 Oct 2012WP(C)/3180/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a penalty levy for failure to maintain accounts, alleging lack of hearing. Court held that since the assessment was remitted to accord parties opportunity, natural justice requires the same for the pending penalty proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Impugned penalty order treated as notice; petitioner directed to file objections; fresh orders to be passed after affording opportunity to adduce evidence.

V.Aboobaker Siddik Vs Intelligence Officer — Kerala HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/24TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 3180 of 2010 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

V.ABOOBAKER SIDDIK, PROP.OMEGA TRADERS, KARUVATTUR POST, VALLAPUZHA, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DIST.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SMT.K.HYMAVATHY SRI.T.G.ABHILASH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB),

¶11

COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PALAKKAD.

¶12

2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD.

¶13

3. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVNANTHAPURAM.

¶14

4. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, OTTAPALAM.

¶15

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, T.K.SHAIJ RAJ

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 3180 of 2010 (V)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT.P1	: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY FIRST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEARS 1999-2000 & 2000-2001 DATED 06.07.2004.
EXT.P2	: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 23.06.2008.
EXT.P3	: TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 31.07.2008.
EXT.P4	: TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE THIRD RESPONDNET FOR THE YEARS 1999-2000 & 2000-2001 DATED 16.11.2009.
EXT.P5	: TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 05.01.2010.

¶21

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC,J

W.P.(C)No.3180 of 2010

¶26

Dated this the 16^th day of October, 2012

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Ext.P1 order of penalty, which was confirmed by the

¶29

1^st and 2^nd Revisional Authorities by Exts.P2 and P4 are under challenge in this writ petition. Ext.P1 penalty order was passed on the basis that the petitioner did not failure to keep true and complete accounts and on that basis, a penalty of Rs.7,35,000/- was levied for the year 1999-2000 and a personal penalty of Rs.99,000/- was also levied. Complaint of the petitioner is that this order was passed without giving him an opportunity to file his objections or adduce evidence in the matter.

¶30

Reading of Ext.P1 shows that notices were issued to the petitioner on three occasions and those notices were returned unclaimed. It is also seen that simultaneous assessment order was also passed for the years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, which also was an exparte one on the

¶31

W.P.(C).No.3180/2010 2

¶32

ground that notices were returned unclaimed without serving notice on the petitioner.

¶33

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the assessment order was set aside by the Tribunal in its order in T.A.No.516 of 2009 and the Assessing Officer is ordered to pass fresh orders, after affording the petitioner to give an opportunity to contest the matter on merits. It is submitted that accordingly the proceedings are now pending consideration of the Assessing Officer. Now that the assessment for the year 1999-2000, for which year, the penalty has been levied on the petitioner by Ext.P1, stands remitted to the Assessing Officer with a direction to give the petitioner an opportunity to contest the matter on merits. I feel natural justice requires that the same principles should be adopted insofar as Ext.P1 also.

¶34

Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that Ext.P1 will be treated as a notice. The petitioner will file

¶35

W.P.(C).No.3180/2010 2

¶36

his objections within three weeks from today, in which event, the first respondent will, pass fresh orders in the matters, after affording the petitioner an opportunity to adduce his evidence and for hearing in the matter. Such orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks thereafter.

¶37

Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶38

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶39

V.Aboobaker Siddik v. Intelligence Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Aboobaker Siddik v. Intelligence Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karthiyani T.K Vs Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore

Eramala Grama Panchayath Vs K.K. Asharaf

C.R.Reghunathan Vs K.S.F.E.

P.a.Subramanian Vs P.I.Sheik Pareeth, District Collector

M/S Shalimar Restaurant Vs M/S Federal Bank Ltd.

P.C.Joseph Vs the Dist.Collector