Disposed

Nikunjam Constructions Pvt. Ltd., v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax

Kerala HC1 Apr 2019WP(C)/7884/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disposes a writ petition challenging retention of seized records. Directs the 2nd respondent to arrange record verification in the petitioner's presence within four weeks and restrain the 1st respondent from proceeding based on a notice generated from those records.

What did the court decide?

2nd respondent to verify records in petitioner's presence within four weeks; 1st respondent restrained from proceeding based on notices relying on unverified records.

Nikunjam Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Vs Assistant… — GST and Indirect Tax | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI

¶4

MONDAY ,THE 01ST DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No. 7884 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

NIKUNJAM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., INDRAPRASTHAM,. PATTOM JAWDIAR ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004,

¶8

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR S. KRISHNA KUMAR.

¶9

BY ADVS.

¶10

SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) SRI.M.RAJAGOPAL

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, WORKS CONTRACT, 2ND FLOOR, TAX TOWERS, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 002. 2 THE STATE TAX OFFICER, SQUAD NO. VII, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AT NEYYATTINKARA 695 121.

¶13

SR. G.P SRI. C.K,. GOVINDAN

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C).No. 7884 of 2019

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Heard Sri. S.Anil Kumar the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.C.K Govindan the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner confined his

¶20

prayers to the following reliefs:

¶21

“(i) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or orders directing the 2^nd Respondent to rerun the original of the records covered by Ext.P2 recovered at the time of inspection on 30-08-2014 to the petitioner at the earliest, as the statutory period of retention of records seized during an inspection has already expired;

¶22

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or orders directing the 2^nd respondent to conduct a verification of the seized records in the presence of the petitioner and offer the petitioner an opportunity to explain the entries in the seized records and not to proceed further based on Ext.P4 to Ext.P4(b) pending such verification and getting the explanation of the petitioner with regard to such records covered by Ext.P2;

¶23

(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or orders directing the 1^st Respondent not to proceed further based on Ext.P8 pending return of the records covered by Ext.P2 and finalization of the proceedings covered by Ext.P4 to Ext.P4(b) after verification of the records in the presence of the presence of the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner in accordance with law;”

¶24

¶25

WP(C).No. 7884 of 2019

¶26

The petitioner through Exts.P11 and P12 requested the 2^nd respondent to examine the seized records including the CD in the presence of the Authorized Representative of the petitioner. The reason for making a request for verification of record in the presence of Authorized Representative of petitioner is that, the petitioner would have opportunity to explain the omissions or commissions if any otherwise erroneously noticed by the 2^nd respondent without further enquiry in this behalf.

¶27

The learned Government Pleader does not oppose the prayer for verification of record in the presence of Authorized Representative of petitioner.

¶28

The writ petition hence is disposed by this order. The 2^nd respondent considers the request of the petitioner made through Exts.P11 and P12, intimates a particular day and time to the petitioner for undertaking the verification of record in

¶29

¶30

WP(C).No. 7884 of 2019

¶31

the presence of Authorized Representative of petitionerCompany. The petitioner is given liberty to communicate a copy of this order and also inform the name, designation etc. of Authorized Representative attending the verification within two weeks from today. The 2^nd respondent undertakes and also completes the exercise directed by this order as expeditiously as possible preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of intimation from the petitioner. Till the inspection is completed, the 1^st respondent is directed to not to proceed with the steps pursuant to Ext.P8.

Sd/-

S.V.BHATTI JUDGE

JS/01.04

WP(C).No. 7884 of 2019

¶37

APPENDIX

¶38

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶39

EXHIBIT P1	COPY OF THE SHOP INSPECTION REPORT DATED 30.8.2014.
EXHIBIT P2	COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 30.8.2014 FOR THE RECOVERY OF THE RECORDS.
EXHIBIT P3	COPY OF NOTICE DATED 7.10.2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	COPY OF NOTICE DATED 22.2.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER S. 67 OF THE ACT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13.
EXHIBIT P4 A	COPY OF NOTICES DATED 22.2.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER S. 67 OF THE ACT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14.
EXHIBIT P4 B	COPY OF NOTICES DATED 22.2.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER S. 67 OF THE ACT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15.
EXHIBIT P5	COPY OF LETTER DATED 2.3.2019 ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	COPY OF REPLY DATED 11.3.2019 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7	COPY OF LETTER DATED 11.3.2019 ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8	COPY OF NOTICE DATED 2.3.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 25 (1) OF THE ACT
EXHIBIT P9	COOY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11-03-2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P10	COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19-03-2019 ADDRESSED TO HTE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶40

¶41

WP(C).No. 7884 of 2019

¶42

EXHIBIT P11 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 25-03-2019 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT (WITHOUT ENCLOSURES) EXHIBIT P12 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.03.2019 ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDEN EXCEPT ENCLOSURES 2 AND 3 EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.03.2019 ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Nikunjam Constructions Pvt. Ltd., v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nikunjam Constructions Pvt. Ltd., v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax

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

Sulaiman.U Vs B.G.Krishnan

Thiruvananthapuram District Cooperative Bank Ltd, Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S. a. Geeripai, Vs Union of India

All India BSNL Casual Workers Union(Intuc), Vs the Sub Divisional Engineer

Continental India (P) Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner

All India BSNL Causal Workers Union (Intuc) Vs the Divisional Engineer