Dismissed

Krishna Pillai v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC2 Feb 2012WP(C)/971/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a tax dealer, challenged assessment orders and demand notices, alleging violation of natural justice due to denial of cross-examination and document supply. The court found the requests vague and belated, rejected the claim, and dismissed the writ petition, directing approach to statutory authorities.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner directed to approach statutory authorities.

Krishna Pillai Vs Kerala State Electricity Board — Income Tax | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/13TH MAGHA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 971 of 2012 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. KRISHNA PILLAI VITTAKONATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, EENIKKARA, KARAKULAM.

¶8

2. DENNISON

¶9

S/O. JOHNSON, THEKKINKARA VEEDU, THUDAYANKODU KARAKULAM.

¶10

3. LATHA KUMARI D/O SARADAMMA, THUDAYANKODU VEEDU, EENIKKARA MURIYIL KARAKULAM.

¶11

4. LEELA, JAYAVILASOM, THUDAYANKODU, KARAKULAM.

¶12

5. Y. RAJAYYAN, PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, VENKODE, EENIKKARA KARAKULAM.

¶13

6. S. USHA PUTHEN VEEDU, PURAVOORKONAM MURI, VENKODE EENIKKARA, KARAKULAM.

¶14

7. FLORENCE RANI KIZHAKKUMKARA VEEDU, THUDAYANKODE EENIKKARA MURIYIL KARAKULAM.

¶15

8. JUSTUS,

¶16

S/O. ENOSE, PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, EENIKKARA MURIYIL KARAKULAM.

¶17

9. FREEDA CHRISTI RINOSH BHAVAN, PURAVOORKONAM MURI, VENKODE KARAKULAM.

¶18

10. SELVANOS, S/O. GABRIEL, THADATHARIKATH PUTHEN VEEDU, VENKODE EENIKKARA, KARAKULAM.

¶19

11. S. GEETAKUMARI NEYYANIKONATH, THEKKINKARA PUTHEN VEEDU PURAVOORKONAM MURI, VENKODE, KARAKULAM.

---2---

LSN

--2--

WP(C).No. 971 of 2012 (V)

¶24

12. M. ROBINSON, RAJI VILAS, CHERUMALA, KUNNU PURAVOORKONAM MURI, VENKODE, KARAKULAM. 13. JOYAN ROBERT, MOHANA VILAS BUNGLAW, NEDUMAN MURI, VENKODE KARAKULAM. 14. BENEDICT JAYARAJ, JAYADEVA BHAVAN, PURAVOORKONAM MURI, VENKODE KALLAYAM. 15. D. DANAMMA, JAYADEVA BHAVAN PURAVOORKONAM MURI, VENKODE KALLAYAM. 16. PARAMU NADAR CHELLAPPAN NADAR, PUTHEN VEEDU, PURAVOORKONAM MURI VENKODE, KARAKULAM. 17. WILMET BHAI, PUTHEN VEEDU, PURAVOORKONAM MURI, VENKODE KARAKULAM. 18. N. NAGENDRAN NAIR, NAGENDRA VILASAM, KURAVANKONAM, PURAVOORKONAM MURI VENKODE, KARAKULAM. 19. E. WILSON, WILLS COTTAGE, EENIKKARA, KALLAYAM.

¶25

20. G. MUTHUNAYAKAM, KISHAKKINKKARA PUTHEN VEEDU NEYYANIKONATH PURAVOORKONAM MURI, VENKODE KARAKULAM.

¶26

21. SUDARSANAN, KODIKUNNIKKON CHARIVILA BUNGLAW, PURAVOORKONAM MURI VENKODE, KARAKULAM.

¶27

22. S. AMBIKA, SIMI BHAVAN, PURAVOORKONAM MURI, VENKODE KARAKULAM.

¶28

23. S. JAYAKUMARI, CHIRAVIL VEEDU, NEYYANIKKONAM, PURAVOORKONAM MURI VENKODE, KARAKULAM.

¶29

24. S. LALITHA SHIBU BHAVAN, PURAVOORKONAM MURI, VENKODE KARAKULAM. 25. DAVID E. VENKODE VEEDU, ENIKKARA, KARAKULAM P.O.

LSN

---3---

--3--

WP(C).No. 971 of 2012 (V) 26. NARAYANAN NAIR, THUDAYAMKODU VEEDU, ENIKKARA, KARAKULAM P.O. 27. RAJANI, KAIPPALLY VEEDU, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): -------------1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VYDYUTHI BHAVAN PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, T.C. SUB DIVISION, ENIKKARA, KARAKULAM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 564. 3. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001. 4. RAJENDRAN SANDHYA RAGAM, KEEZHEKALLAYAM KALLAYAM P.O. 695 005. 5. DIVAKARAN, GIRIJA MANDIRAM, KEEZHEKALLAYAM KALLAYAM P.O. 695 005. 6. NADESAN KEEZHEKALLAYAM, KIZHAKKUMKARA KALLAYAM P.O. 695 005. R1-R2 BY SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON,SC,KSEB R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

LSN

¶35

WP(C).No. 971 of 2012 (V)

¶36

APPENDIX

¶37

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:

¶38

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REFERENCE DATED 14.3.2005 TO A.D.M. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF ROUGH SKETCH OF SITE PLAN. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS TO VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT DATED 21.5.2005 WITH TRANSLATION. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR DATED 30.6.2011. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.12.2011 OF THIRD RESPONDENT.

¶39

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

LSN

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.(C) NO. 971 OF 2012-V

¶46

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

¶47

Dated this the 10^th day of January, 2013

¶48

J U D G M E N T

¶49

Petitioner is a dealer under the KVAT Act. He has been issued notices under Section 25(1) for the assessment years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. To those notices petitioner filed Exts.P1, P2 objections and to the revised notice petitioner filed P3 supplementary objection also. Assessments were completed by Exts.P4 and P5. Based on the assessment orders Exts.P7 and P8 demand notices have been issued. It is challenging the assessment orders and demand notices, the writ petition is filed.

¶50

The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the assessment orders are passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. According o the petitioner, on receipt of the notices, in the replies filed petitioner sought an opportunity to cross examine the consignors and the lorry drivers. It is also stated that he sought copies of the documents relied on. According to him, denying both the requests

¶51

WPC.No.971/2012

¶52

:2 :

¶53

assessment has been completed and therefore he says that the orders are to be set aside.

¶54

However, a reading of Exts.P2 and P3 objections filed by the petitioner shows that he has made only a very vague and general request for cross examination. In my view, when the recipient of a notice wants to cross examine any person, it is for him to satisfy the person who is to be examined. As against this, in Exts.P2 and P3 notices, petitioner has not made any such specific request. In such circumstances I am unable to find fault with the Officer on this account.

¶55

In so far as the complaint of the petitioner regarding the non-supply of documents is concerned, a reading of Exts.P5 assessment order shows that the documents were perused by the petitioner. At that time petitioner did not make any request for copies and long thereafter, the request was made. This belated request according to the Officer was made only to delay the proceedings. There is no material available before this court to conclude that this conclusion of the Officer is erroneous. If

¶56

WPC.No.971/2012

¶57

:3 :

¶58

that be so, this complaint of the petitioner also cannot be accepted.

¶59

In such circumstances I am not inclined to accept the case of the petitioner that orders are vitiated for violation of the principles of natural justice and the course open to the petitioner is to approach the statutory authorities.

¶60

Writ petition fails and is dismissed.

¶61

(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE

WPC.No.971/2012

:4 :

WPC.No.971/2012

:5 :

(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE

¶68

vi/

Krishna Pillai v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Pillai v. Kerala State Electricity Board

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

Jacob Mathew Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

K.Krishnan Asari Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

T.Stephen Das Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Sivaraman Chettiar Vs State of Kerala

Muthalif Vs Kseb

Manager Vs Kseb