Allowed

K.Selvaraj & Another v. Intelligence Officer

Kerala HC15 Jun 2023WP(C)/5040/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Income Tax Department to provide copies of seized documents relied upon in penalty proceedings to the petitioners before finalizing the case, relying on Section 67(3) of the KVAT Act for a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to issue copies of documents relied on in Exts.P1 and P2 to the petitioners before finalizing penalty proceedings.

K.Selvaraj & Another Vs Intelligence Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 25TH JYAISHTA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 5040 OF 2011

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 K.SELVARAJ & ANOTHER GOVINDAPURAM, MUTHALAMADA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶8

2 SMT.KAVITHA RAVICHANDRAN `PERIMCHERRY KALAM FARM', METTUKADU,, THATHAMANGALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SMT.K.HYMAVATHY

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

INTELLIGENCE OFFICER

¶12

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,, MATTANCHERRY AT MINI CIVIL STATION,, ALUVA-683 101.

¶13

BY SMT.RESMITHA R CHANDRAN-GP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) No.5040 OF 2011

¶16

¶17

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶18

=========================

¶19

W.P.(C) No.5040 of 2011

¶20

=========================

¶21

Dated this the 15^th day of June, 2023

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This writ petition is filed seeking directions to

¶24

the respondent to issue copies of the documents as requested under Exts.P3 and P4 letters.

¶25

It is submitted that the respondent is

¶26

proceeding to complete the penalty proceedings proposed under Exts.P1 and P2 notices, without giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to substantiate their contentions and without giving them copies of the material which is relied on against them. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the notices, specifically, refer to the executive diary pertaining to the relevant periods and that the petitioners are entitled to be given copies of such material which is relied on.

¶27

A counter affidavit has been placed on record

¶28

WP(C) No.5040 OF 2011

¶29

¶30

stating that an executive diary pertaining to the year 2007 containing 158 pages in which records of transportation of live chicken was made was recovered from the petitioner's premises. It is stated that copies of invoices issued by the chicken dealers were also seized from the premises. It is stated that an opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioners and that the petitioners have submitted replies stating that they are unaware of the contents of the seized documents. It is stated that since the recovered documents are important and valued and illegal transactions of other dealers have also been mentioned in the said documents, photocopies of such transactions could not be given to the petitioners. The petitioners were given an opportunity to verify the recovered documents and the date for verification was fixed on 16.12.2011. However, the petitioners did not utilize the opportunity for verification of recovered documents.

¶31

Having considered the contentions advanced, I notice that Section 67 (3) of the KVAT Act, 2003, provides for a reasonable opportunity being provided to the

¶32

WP(C) No.5040 OF 2011

¶33

¶34

assessee to show cause as to why the penalty proceedings shall not be finalised as proposed. The show cause notices refer to the documents which have been seized from the premises of the petitioners. It is on the basis of such documents that penalty is proposed to be imposed. If that be so, I am of the opinion that the petitioners would be entitled to an opportunity to raise their contentions after being issued with copies of the documents as well.

¶35

In the above view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to issue copies of the documents relied on in Exts.P1 and P2 to the petitioners as requested in Exts.P3 and P4 letters. The penalty proceedings shall be finalised after giving the petitioners a reasonable opportunity of hearing after being issued with sufficient copies of documents as well.

¶36

Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶37

SSK/15/06

¶38

WP(C) No.5040 OF 2011

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX

¶41

PETITION	ER'S EX	HIBITS
EXHIBIT	P1	TRUE COPY OF THE TRUST DEED DATED 20.1.1993 OF THE PETITIONER. True copy of the penalty proposal notice u/s. 67(1) of the KVAT Act issued by respondent for the years 08-09 and 09-10 of the 1st petitioner dated 12.01.2011
EXHIBIT	P2	TRUE COPY OF THE TRUST DEED DATED 20.1.1993 OF THE PETITIONER. True copy of the penalty proposal notice u/s. 67(1) of the KVAT Act issued by respondent for the years 08-09 and 09-10 of the 2^ndpetitioner dated 22.12.2010
EXHIBIT	P3	True copy of the request for copy of the documents of the 1st petitioner dated 28.1.2011
EXHIBIT	P4	True copy of the request for copy of the documents of the 2nd petitioner dated 29.1.2011
EXHIBIT	P5	True copy of the notice issued by respondent of the 1st petitioner dated 04.02.2011
EXHIBIT	P6	True copy of the notice issued by respondent of the 2^ndpetitioner dated 04.02.2011

K.Selvaraj & Another v. Intelligence Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Selvaraj & Another v. Intelligence 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

A.R.Associates, Vs State of Kerala

Vijayan Pillai Vs the State of Kerala

Hi Decors Vs Commercial Tax Officer

The Kerala Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. (Sidco) Vs Ranjini.a.P.

S.Venkitasubrahmani Vs v.K.Gopinatha Varma

Safe Development Alms Trust Vs the State of Kerala Represented by Chief Secretary