Remanded

M/S Tuaman Engineering Ltd. v. the Commercial Tax Officer (Enquiry)

Kerala HC2 Sept 2016WP(C)/24725/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside a penalty order against the petitioner for want of compliance with natural justice. The court reserved the question of bank guarantee invocation and directed the petitioner to appear before the Enquiry Officer.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P9 (penalty order) set aside; petitioner directed to appear before the first respondent on 26.09.2016.

M/S Tuaman Engineering Ltd. Vs the Commercial Tax… — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/11TH BHADRA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 24725 of 2016 (M) ----------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

M/S TUAMAN ENGINEERING LTD, PALATHINKAL HOUSE, OLD NO. 14/302, NEW 2/151-B, VADARUCODE - PUTHENCRUZ, REPRESENTED BY ITS' AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR.KURIAKOSE.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.A.KUMAR SRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR SMTG.MINI(1748) SRI.P.S.SREE PRASAD

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (ENQUIRY), OFFICE OF THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER(INT) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERY AT MINI CIVIL STATION, ALUVA - 683 101.

¶11

2. THE MANAGER, YES BANK, 1ST FLOOR, PUTHEN PLAZA, KPCC JUNCTION, MG ROAD, KOCHI - 11.

¶12

3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM - 682 015.

¶13

R1 & 3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C).No. 24725 of 2016 (M)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

P1 TRUE COPY OF INVOICE OF SR ENGINEERING CORPORATION.

¶20

P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SELF DECLARATION THAT THE GOODS WERE BEING BROUGHT ON RENTAL BASIS.

¶21

P3 TRUE COPY OF MATERIAL INSPECTION REPORT PREPARED AT BPCL SITE EVIDENCING ERECTION OF SCAFFOLDING MATERIAL AT BPCL SITE.

¶22

P3(A) TRUE COPY OF MATERIAL VERIFICATION AT THE BPCL SITE BY BPCL SECURITY STAFF FOR LETTING IN CONTRACTING MATERIALS.

¶23

P4 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP DT. 22.4.2015 EVIDENCING RETURN OF MATERIAL TO CALCUTTA.

¶24

P5 TRUE COPY OF SELF DECLARATION FOR RETURN OF THE MATERIALS DT. 22.4.2015.

¶25

P6 GATE PASS AT SITE OF BPCL DT. 22.4.2015.

¶26

P7 GATE PASS ISSUED BY BPCL KOCHI REFINERY DT. 24.4.2015.

¶27

P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DT. 12.7.2016 EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF THE REPLY.

¶28

P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER DT. 14.7.2016.

¶29

P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT.19.7.2016.

¶30

P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO. 2098/2012 DT. 07.12.2012.

¶31

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶37

W.P.(C) No.24725 of 2016

¶38

Dated this the 2^nd day of September, 2016

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

Petitioner challenges Ext.P9 by which an order of penalty

¶41

had been issued, calling upon the petitioner to pay an amount of 4,59,300/-. ₹

¶42

The main contention urged by the petitioner is that

¶43

there is gross violation of principles of natural justice . It is stated that though an objection was filed producing all necessary documents and was received by the officer on 13.7.2016, as evident from the endorsement made in Ext.P8 letter dated 12.7.2016, without referring to any of such documents, Ext.P9 order was passed on 14.7.2016. Perusal of Ext.P9 also does not indicate that any of the documents filed by the petitioner had been verified by the Enquiry Officer.

¶44

Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact situation

¶45

and that the petitioner has a case that the materials brought were scaffolding materials, which are to be returned back after

¶46

W.P.(C) No.24725 of 2016

¶47

-2-

¶48

the work undertaken at BPCL site, it will be appropriate to give

¶49

one more opportunity to the petitioner to contest the matter in accordance with law.

¶50

Petitioner also has a case that the bank guarantee

¶51

was wrongly invoked. Insofar as the bank guarantee had been given as security for releasing the goods and the bank guarantee had already been invoked, I do not think it necessary to adjudicate on such an issue.

¶52

Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact situation, this writ petition is disposed of as under:

¶53

(i) Ext.P9 is set aside.

¶54

(ii) Petitioner shall appear before the first respondent

¶55

on 26.09.2016 at 11 a.m. and produce all necessary materials to defend the above said proceedings, in which event, the first respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

A.M. SHAFFIQUE JUDGE

¶58

Scl/02.09.2016

M/S Tuaman Engineering Ltd. v. the Commercial Tax Officer (Enquiry)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Tuaman Engineering Ltd. v. the Commercial Tax Officer (Enquiry)

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

M/S.Bristo Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S.Canara Bank

Mariya P.A. Vs M.G.University

Abhin K Vs the Director of Technical Education

Saju Jacob, Rep. by P/a Holder George Xavier Vs the Authorised Officer, Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Bodygear International (P) Ltd. Vs Kadungallur Grama Panchayath

Ananthapuri Educational Society Vs Vice Chancellor