Rahumath.S vs The Intelligence Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 2958 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI

                                    &

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

      WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 7TH MAGHA, 1942

                             WA.No.201 OF 2021

 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 15866/2020(G) OF HIGH COURT OF
                             KERALA


APPELLANT/S:

                RAHUMATH.S
                AGED 50 YEARS
                PROPRIETRIX A.R. CHAINS, MYNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM-690 519.

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.ANIL D. NAIR
                SRI.R.SREEJITH
                SMT.TELMA RAJU
                SRI.SANGEETH JOSEPH JACOB

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER
                SQUAD NO 1, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, (NOW
                RE-/DESIGNATED AS STATE TAX OFFICER, SQUAD NO 1, SGST
                DEPARTMENT), BAPPUJI NAGAR, ASRAMOM, KOLLAM-691 002.

      2         THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER,
                SQUAD NO 1V, COMMERCIAL, TAXES DEPARTMENT, (NOW
                RE-/DESIGNATED AS STATE TAX OFFICER, SQUAD NO 1V, SGST
                DEPARTMENT), BAPPUJI NAGAR, ASRAMOM, KOLLAM-691 002.

      3         THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
                (NOW RE-DESIGNATED AS STATE TAX OFFICER, SGST
                DEPARTMENT), KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM-690 544.

      4         THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,
                KUNNATHUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 002.


OTHER PRESENT:
 W.A. No. 201/2021
                                 -2-



               SR GP MOHAMMED RAFIQ

     THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.01.2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.A. No. 201/2021
                                      -3-




                              JUDGMENT

Dated this the 27th day of January 2021

S.V.Bhatti, J.

Heard Advocate Anil D Nair and Sr. Government Pleader

Mohammed Rafiq for the parties.

2. Unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant and

challenges the judgment dated 05.08.2020 in W.P.(C)

No.15866/2020. The petitioner challenges orders in Exts. P21,

P21(a), and P21(b) made by the respondents determining

penalty payable by the petitioner under the KVAT Act. These

orders relate to the assessment years 2014-15 to 2016-17. The

petitioner argues that the orders impugned in the writ petition

are made in violation of principles of natural justice, and for the

said purpose a few dates between 01.11.2019 and 24.12.2019

have been stated.

W.A. No. 201/2021

3. The petitioner endeavours before this Court for

setting aside impugned orders Exts.P21, P21(a), and P21(b), and

rehear is undertaken by the Assessing Officer. We have given

our attention to the dates stated by the Advocate for petitioner

and the dates referred to in the order impugned in the writ

petition. The writ petition was dismissed by noting that the

petitioner would require some time to move the appellate

authority challenging Ext.P21 etc; and in view thereof the

learned Single Judge kept recovery proceedings in abeyance for

one month. From the order dated 15.10.2020 made by the

learned Single Judge in Review Petition No.672/2020 in W.P.(C)

No.15866/2020 it is clear that the petitioner has already filed an

appeal before the statutory appellate authority. We are

convinced that the remedy available under the Act is efficacious

and the dates adverted to by the appellant cannot be

appreciated in isolation of all dates in the enquiry and redirect W.A. No. 201/2021

hearing by the Assessing Officer.

We do not see any ground, or that a point is made out

warranting our interference. Appeal fails and dismissed

accordingly. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

S.V.BHATTI

JUDGE

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

JUDGE

jjj