Shemi Saleem vs The State Tax Officer (Ib)
2021 Latest Caselaw 6610 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

  WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.4854 OF 2021(F)


PETITIONER:

               SHEMI SALEEM
               AGED 60 YEARS
               M/S.POSH ADVERTISERS, ASSET SUMMIT SUITES, MUTTOM,
               KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM 683 106.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI
               SHRI. HRITHWIK D. NAMBOOTHIRI

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE STATE TAX OFFICER (IB)
               O/O.THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (INT), STATE GST
               DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM AT EDAPPALLY, KOCHI 682 024.

      2        THE STATE TAX OFFICER (IB)
               O/O.THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (INT), STATE GST
               DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE 673 006

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


OTHER PRESENT:

               GP- SMT. THUSHARA JAMES

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.4854 OF 2021(F)

                                   2

                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 24th day of February 2021

What is impugned in this writ petition is the showcause notice

at Ext.P3.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

issue is covered by the judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal

No.852/2018 between M/s. Vismaya Advertising Vs. The

Intelligence Officer, decided on 13.07.2020. He therefore, submits

that the impugned notice at Ext.P3 deserves to be quashed and set

aside.

3. I have considered the submissions so advanced. The

notice under Section 67(1) of the KVAT Act, 2003 is just a show

cause notice asking the petitioner as to why the proposed penalty

should not be imposed on him. If, according to the learned counsel

for the petitioner, the position of law on this aspect is crystallized by

the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment at Ext.P6, he is

free to respond to the showcause notice and to point out the

judgment rendered by this Court on the issue to the State Tax

Officer, who has issued the show cause notice to the petitioner.

Hence, I do not consider this case as a fit case for exercising writ

jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner is given liberty to respond WP(C).No.4854 OF 2021(F)

to the showcause notice by pointing out the relevant judgment to

the authority and the authority is expected to consider the matter

and to decide the same with a reasoned order.

This petition is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

A.M.BADAR Nsd //true copy// JUDGE PA to Judge WP(C).No.4854 OF 2021(F)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER NO.TBT/HOARDING/2018-19 DATED 23.11.2018 WITH M/S.THAMARAPPALLY BROTHERS TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, ATLANTIS JUNCTION, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM BY THE PETITIONER FIRM.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER NO.EAST/3059AB/2014/15 DATED 25.12.2015 WITH EASTEA CHAI PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTHAMANGALAM BY THE PETITIONER FIRM.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY NOTICE NO.IB II E/22/18-19/F DATED 3.8.2018 FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 U/S.67(1) OF KVAT ACT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF HEARING NOTICE NO.IBE-II/E-

22/18-19/F DATED 27.1.2021 U/S.95 OF KVAT ACT (1)FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER FOR CLARIFICATION NO.C3/5401/14/CT DATED 9.11.2015 U/S.94 OF KVAT ACT ISSUED BY THE CLARIFYING AUTHORITY.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE WRIT APPEAL W.A.

NO.852/2018 AND IN AN O.T.APPEAL NO.3/2018 DATED 13.7.2020 ISSUED BY HON'BLE COURT OF KERALA.