Allowed

J.S.Dinsha v. the Intelligence Officer

Kerala HC8 Sept 2016WP(C)/27589/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the order challenging penalty on limitation grounds, noting it was a factual matter for the authority. However, exercising its discretion, the court reduced the deposit amount from 30% to 20% of the demand.

What did the court decide?

The order examining the petitioner to remit 30︁90 of the penalty was modified to require the petitioner to remit only 20︁90 within four weeks.

J.S.Dinsha Vs the Intelligence Officer — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/17TH BHADRA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 27589 of 2016 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

J.S.DINSHA

¶8

M/S. RAMANI PLYWOOD, THANNIKKAMUKKU, KANDACHIRA, PERINAD P.O., KOLLAM.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO. II, KOLLAM AT KOTTARAKKARA- 691 506.

¶12

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM-691 001.

¶13

3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (SALES TAX), TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM- 691 001.

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.K.SHAMSUDDIN

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Msd.

¶17

WP(C).No. 27589 of 2016 (W)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶20

EXT. P1 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 06.08.2010. EXT. P1(A) COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 09.08.2010. EXT. P2 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2008-2009 DATED 18.01.2016. EXT. P2(A) COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2009-2010 DATED 25.01.2016. EXT. P3 COPY OF REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17.02.2016. EXT. P3(A) COPY OF REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17.02.2016. EXT. P4 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 01.08.2016.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶27

------------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.27589 of 2016

¶28

----------------------------------- Dated this the 8^th day of September, 2016

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

The petitioner challenges the direction issued by the revisional authority directing the petitioner to remit 30% of the penalty imposed in respect of two orders. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that the penalty orders are barred by limitation.

¶31

The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that when proceedings were taken against the petitioner earlier, she had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C). No.35402/2010 challenging the proceedings taken against the petitioners therein inter alia contending that separate proceedings are to be initiated and this Court by judgment dated 10.12.2010, directed that the Intelligence Officer has to issue proposal notices against both the petitioners, if proceedings are initiated against both of them on the basis of inspection conducted on 04.06.2008 and 12.08.2009 and to provide them appropriate opportunity to file objections. It is also observed that adjudication proceedings shall be done simultaneously and the contentions of the petitioners regarding intermingling and mixing up of the stock shall be dealt with and appropriate decision shall be taken thereof. It is further observed that until such time, the above directions are complied with, the proceedings initiated against the 1^st petitioner therein shall

¶32

W.P.(C).No.27589 of 2016

¶33

¶34

be kept in abeyance. The petitioner is the 1^st petitioner therein. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an inspection was conducted on 04.06.2008 and 12.08.2009. As per Section 67 of the KVAT Act, 2003, the penalty proceedings have to be finalised within a period of three years from the date of detention. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the direction issued by this Court on 10.12.2010 in W.P.(C). No.35402/2010, the penalty orders have been passed only on 18.01.2016 and 25.01.2016, which is much after the period of limitation.

¶35

The learned Government Pleader submits that after the issue was interfered by this Court in W.P.(C).No.35402/2010, proposal notice was issued only in the year 2015 and thereafter, the petitioner had sought for further adjournments, which ultimately resulted in the penalty orders being passed in the aforesaid dates and therefore, the orders are well within the period of limitation, insofar as the proceedings had been directed to be kept in abeyance by this Court as per judgment in W.P.(C).No.35402/2010.

¶36

Having regard to the controversy involved in this matter, I don't think that this Court will be justified in interfering with the impugned order at this stage on the ground of limitation. These are all factual issues which are required to be considered by the revisional authority by adjudicating the proceedings. On this

¶37

W.P.(C).No.27589 of 2016

¶38

¶39

ground, I don't think that this Court will be justified in setting aside the impugned order.

¶40

However taking into account the contentions urged, the

¶41

quantum of amount can be reduced to 20% instead of 30%.

¶42

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as under :

¶43

Ext.P4 order is modified to the extent of directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the demand instead of 30%.

¶44

The petitioner shall comply with the direction within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.

¶47

J.S.Dinsha v. the Intelligence Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.S.Dinsha 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Financial Service Executives Welfare Association Vs S.K.Roy

Reji M.P. Vs South Indian Bank

P. Sooraj Vs the Principal

S Dalia Vs the Intelligence Officer

Santhosh Kumar v. Vs Commercial Tax Officer

Ravi K.M. Vs the Authorised Officer