Dismissed

Nirapara Roller Flour Mills Private Limited v. the State Tax Officer

Kerala HC1 Aug 2023WP(C)/11369/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In WP(C) No. 11369 of 2019, the Kerala High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to a penalty order under the KVAT Act, 2003. The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative statutory appeal remedy.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed on the ground of availability of alternate remedy; petitioner directed to file appeal within 15 days.

Nirapara Roller Flour Mills Private Limited Vs the State Tax… — Money Laundering | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 11369 OF 2019

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

M/S NIRAPARA ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED
INDUSTRIAL NAGAR P.O, CHANGANACHERRY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
P. F. JOSEPH

¶6

BY ADVS.
AJI V.DEV
SMT.O.A.NURIYA
SRI.ALAN PRIYADARSHI DEV

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER SQUAD NO. II, S.G.S.T. DEPARTMENT, KOTTAYAM, PALA - 686 575

¶9

2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SPECIAL CIRCLE, S.G.S.T. DEPARTMENT NAGAPADAM, KOTTAYAM - 686 001

¶10

3 THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES TAX TOWER, KILLIPPALAM, KARAMANA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 002

¶11

BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶12

RESHMITA RAMACHANDRAN-GP

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WPC No.11369 of 2019

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Dated this the 1^st day of August, 2023

¶18

Heard Sri.Aji V.Dev, learned counsel for

¶19

the petitioner as well as Ms.Reshmitha Ramachandran, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶20

This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugning Ext.P11 order dated 28.02.2019, in respect of assessment year 2009-10 whereby the penalty proceedings under Section 67(1)(b) & (d) of KVAT Act, 2003 had been finalised against the petitioner imposing the penalty of Rs.2,09,86,160/-.

¶21

On Intelligence input, inspection was conducted on the business premises of the petitioner on 04.03.2010 as well as the business

¶22

WPC No.11369 of 2019

¶23

¶24

premises of five of the dealers having breached sa les.

¶25

The were penalty proceedings

¶26

undertaken against the petitioner and in order dated 31.10.2012 was passed imposing the penalty of Rs.2,35,63,384/- under Section 67(1) (b)& (d) of the KVAT Act,2003. This penalty was challenged by the petitioner in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)-II, Commercial Taxes, Kottayam. The appellate authority by the order dated 16.03.2013, remanded the matter back to the Intelligence Officer, Squad No.II, Kottayam for fresh disposal according to law after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to furnish the full details of their 70 customers before the Intelligence Authority for further enquiry and investigation. The Intelligence Authority was

¶27

WPC No.11369 of 2019

¶28

¶29

directed to refix the quantum of suppression after conducting a proper enquiry regarding the sales disallowed in form No.8B in view of the details furnished by the petitioner and after considering the stock of semi finished goods under processing in the plant at the time of shop inspection and also directed to refix the turnover suppression on the basis of the sale value of wheat products as per sales invoice issued by the petitioner.

¶30

On remand the Intelligence Officer by

¶31

the impugned order had confirmed the penalty of Rs.2,09,60,160/-.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Intelligence Officer has not followed the directions issued by the Appellate Authority and has passed the penalty order. He further submits that there was violation of the principle of natural justice as the petitioner was

¶33

WPC No.11369 of 2019

¶34

¶35

not returned the documents seized from the

¶36

business premises and therefore the petitioner could not furnish the details of purchase and sales of the wheat. In absence of documents proper response could not be filed. It is admitted that the order is liable to be set aside.

¶37

Ms.Reshmitha Ramachandran, Learned Government Pleader has drawn attention of this Court to the impugned order. The order impugned itself would disclose that the petitioner was given opportunity of being heard in the matter in person or through authorized representative at 11.30 AM

¶38

on 19.12.2018. They were also given an opportunity to file their objections if any, within 15 days after receipt of the notice. After receipt of the said notice, the petitioner filed an interim reply on 19.12.2018 and requested one month time for detailed replay. The one month time was

¶39

WPC No.11369 of 2019

¶40

¶41

also allowed to the petitioner on 09.01.2019. The petitioner filed a written objection to the notice within the period of one month and he was also allowed personal hearing to file other evidence.

¶42

After considering the reply and the evidence produced by the petitioner the impugned order of penalty has been passed. In view thereof, I find no substance in the submission of learned

¶43

counsel for the petitioner that there had been violation principle of natural justice in finalising the penalty order by the impugned order Ext.P11.

¶44

Admittedly, there is remedy of appeal under the KVAT Act, 2013 against the order impugned herein and therefore, this Court does not deem it appropriate to entertain this writ petition on the ground of availability of alternate remedy of the appeal under the statute itself.

¶45

WPC No.11369 of 2019

¶46

¶47

Thus, this writ petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of alternate remedy however it is provided that if the writ petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate authority within a period of fifteen days from today, the Appellate Authority shall proceed to decide the appeal in accordance with the law expeditiously without going into the question of limitation.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

DINESH KUMAR SINGH

¶50

JUDGE

¶51

¶52

WPC No.11369 of 2019

¶53

¶54

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11369/2019

¶55

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS :

¶56

`EXHIBIT P1`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `2009-10 DATED 31.10`	`PENALTY ORDER PASSED FOR` `.2012`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`A TRUE COPY OF APPE` `EXT. P1 DATED 16.03`	`LLATE ORDER REMANDING` `.2013`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `NO. 17 FOR THE YEAR` `15.12.2016`	`NOTICE ISSUED IN FORM` `2009 -10 DATED`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `PENALTY FOR THE YEA` `11.10.2018`	`NOTICE ISSUED PROPOSING` `R 2009-10 DATED`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `PETITIONER DATED 19` `RETURN OF THE RECOR`	`LETTER FILED BY THE` `.12.2018 REQUESTING` `DS`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE`	`NOTICE DATED 24.12.2018`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `HEARING DATED 27.12`	`NOTICE FOR PERSONAL` `.2018`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `THE PETITIONER DATE` `OF THEIR CUSTOMERS`	`COMMUNICATION FILED BY` `D 24.01.2019 WITH A LIST`
`EXHIBIT P9`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `HEARING DATED 05.02`	`NOTICE FOR PERSONAL` `.2019`
`EXHIBIT P10`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `THE LIST OF BUYERS` `DATED 21.02.2019`	`LETTER FILED ALONG WITH` `AND THEIR FULL ADDRESSES`
`EXHIBIT P11`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE`	`PROCEEDINGS OF PENALTY`
	`PASSED FOR 2009-10`	`DATED 28.02.2019`

Nirapara Roller Flour Mills Private Limited v. the State Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirapara Roller Flour Mills Private Limited v. the State Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muhammed Hussain Vs the State Transport Commissioner

Aishabi Vs Joy K.B

Renjini Mohanan Vs Axis Bank Ltd.

Kamalam Vs the Village Officer

Shibu O.U. Vs the Deputy Tahsildar (Rr)

Careon Healthcare Solutions Private Limited, Vs Union of India