Mymoona K. vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 2683 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

      FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 2ND MAGHA, 1942

                        WP(C).No.1777 OF 2021(V)


PETITIONER/S:

                MYMOONA K.,AGED 52 YEARS
                D/O K IBRAHIM, CHALIKATH NEELIMAVUNGAL HOUSE,
                PADIKKAL, URUMIBAZAR, MOONNIYUR,
                VELIMUKKU SOUTH, MALAPPURAM-676027.

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.NIRMAL. S
                SMT.VEENA HARI
                SMT.RIA ELIZABETH JOSEPH
                SMT.IRENE ELZA SOJI

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         THE STATE OF KERALA
                REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
                COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

      2         THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE),
                SPECIAL SQUAD, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
                DEPARTMENT, NIRMAL ARCADE BUILDING, ERANHIPALAM,
                KOZHIKODE 673 006



                SMT. THUSHARA JAMES, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.1777 OF 2021            2



                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 22nd day of January 2021

Heard both sides.

2. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the notice

proceedings with the prayer that the 2 nd respondent be directed to

furnish documents demanded vide Ext.P2 notice, to the petitioner

in a time bound manner. It is further prayed that the 2nd

respondent be directed not to proceed against the petitioner in

pursuant to Exts.P1 and P3 notices.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that

the petitioner is the legal heir of one Ibrahim, who was not even

doing any timber business in Kerala. He was doing some business

in Karnataka. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued

that after receipt of Ext.P1 notice, the petitioner, who is a home

maker through her advocate replied the same by Ext.P2 and

demanded certain documents from the Sales Tax Authorities.

However, as yet, no documents were supplied. But the Department

has issued notice of show cause as to why penalty under section

45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act should not be imposed on

the petitioner. According to the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, unless the petitioner is supplied with the documents

relied on by the Sales Tax Department, she is not in a position to

file her objection to Ext.P3 notice and therefore, the Department

be directed to supply the documents and until then, no coercive

action will be taken in the matter.

4. As against this, the learned Government Pleader drew

my attention to the show cause notice at Ext.P1 and stated that by

mentioning particulars, about eight documents were called for from

the petitioner in order to finalise determination of liability or

otherwise of the sales tax for the year 2000-21. Learned

Government Pleader further drew my attention to Ext.P3 notice

and submitted that while issuing this notice, reply of one Eshaque

Kalathingal was considered and giving all necessary details, the

petitioner is informed that the tax effect is more than Rs.28 lakhs

and it is proposed to impose a penalty of Rs.56,50,000/-(Rupees

fifty six lakhs and fifty thousand only). Objections of the petitioner

are invited by this notice.

5. I have considered the submissions so advanced. So far

as the supply of documents by the respondent department is

concerned, the reply notice at Ext.P2 is not mentioning any details

about the documents sought for by the petitioner. It only mentions

that documents under which the assessment was made against the

father of the petitioner be supplied to the petitioner. This reply

was to the notice at Ext.P1, in which the respondent department

was not relying on any documents. On the contrary, the

respondent department was requesting the petitioner to supply

documents at serial Nos.1 to 8 enumerated in that notice. As such,

on the pretext that the petitioner be supplied with the documents

relied on by the respondent department, the petitioner cannot seek

stay of the proceedings as prayed in the instant petition.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further

submits that the petitioner was not having any connection with the

alleged timber business and as such, she is not supposed to be in

possession of the documents sought for by the department.

7. Be that as it may, the matter is still at the notice stage

and I deem it fit not to interfere in such matters which is just at

the notice stage with the respondent department. If the petitioner

desirous of seeking any documents from the respondent-

department, she is free to make appropriate application by paying

necessary charges, if any. The petitioner is also free to apply to the

concerned authority to grant necessary adjournments for reply the

notice at Ext.P3. If the petitioner makes such request, considering

the fact that the petitioner is the legal heir of deceased Ibrahim,

who was allegedly doing timber business, the request for

adjournment be considered sympathetically and favourably.

8. In this view of the matter, needless to mention that if

the department wants to rely on any documents other than the

documents which were in possession of deceased Ibrahim, the

same be supplied to the petitioner for fair adjudication of the

notice proceedings at Ext.P3.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

                                                   A.M.BADAR
ajt                                                   JUDGE




                            APPENDIX

EXHIBIT P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.TCR 14/2000-01 DATED 25.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 18.11.2020

EXHIBIT P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.TCR 14/2000-01 DATED 14/11/2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT