M/S. Nirapara Roller Flour Mills ... vs The State Tax Offcier
2023 Latest Caselaw 9170 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
     THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
                                  &
        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
 WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 1ST BHADRA, 1945
                       WA NO. 1478 OF 2023
 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 11369/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF
                               KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
          M/S. NIRAPARA ROLLER FLOUR MILLS [P] LTD
          INDUSTRIAL NAGAR -P. O,
          CHANGANACHERRY
          REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
          P.F. JOSEPH
            BY ADVS.AJI V.DEV
            ALAN PRIYADARSHI DEV
            S.SAJEEVAN

RESPONDENTS:
    1     THE STATE TAX OFFCIER, SQUAD NO.II,
          S.G.S.T. DEPARTMENT,
          KOTTAYAM, PALA, PIN - 686575
    2       THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
            SPECIAL CIRCLE, S.G.S.T. DEPARTMENT,
            NAGAMPADAM, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001
    3       THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES,
            TAX TOWER, KILLIPPALAM, KARAMANA -P.O,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695002


            BY SMT. M.M JASMINE, GP

     THIS    WRIT   APPEAL   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
23.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WA No.1478 of 2023
                                           2




    DR. A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.JJ
                    ......................................................
                              WA No.1478 of 2023
                .................................................................
                Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2023


                                     JUDGMENT

Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar.J

This writ appeal is preferred against the judgment dated

1.8.2023 of a learned single Judge in WP(C)No.11369 of 2019.

2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ appeal

are as follows:-

The appellant herein approached this Court through the writ petition

impugning an order of penalty passed under Section 67(1) of the

Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act). It would appear that against

an earlier order of penalty that was passed against the appellant, an

appeal was filed before the first appellate authority and the said

authority remanded the matter back to the intelligence officer for a

fresh disposal in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable

opportunity to the appellant. In the de novo proceedings a fresh order WA No.1478 of 2023

confirming the penalty against the appellant came to be passed. The

appellant thereafter approached this Court against the said order of

the intelligence officer on the contention that while passing the

impugned order the intelligence officer had not followed the

directions issued by the appellate authority who had remanded the

matter on the earlier occasion. He also raised a contention regarding

violation of the principles of natural justice as, according to him, the

documents seized from his premises had not been returned to him.

3. The learned single Judge, who considered the matter

found no substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the

appellant that there had been a violation of the principles of natural

justice since he had been issued a due notice asking him to prefer

objections to the proposal for imposition of penalty and the order

imposing penalty was passed only after considering those objections.

The learned single Judge further found that in as much as there was

an effective alternate remedy of preferring an appeal against the

penalty order, there was no justification in entertaining the writ

petition against the same. The learned single Judge then proceeded

to grant the appellant 15 days time to avail the alternate remedy and

issued a further direction to the first appellate authority to consider

that appeal expeditiously on merits without going into the question of

limitation.

WA No.1478 of 2023

4. Before us, it is the submission of the learned counsel for

the appellant that the learned single Judge ought to have entertained

the writ petition on merits and ought not to have relegated the

appellant to the first appellate authority.

5. On a perusal of the impugned judgment of the learned

single Judge, we find that the learned single Judge has considered the

matter in its correct legal perspective and there was indeed no

exceptional circumstances warranting an intervention by this Court

with the penalty order.

Resultantly, we dismiss this writ appeal without prejudice to the

right of the appellant to prefer an appeal against the order impugned

in the writ petition within a period of one month from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment, by extending the time granted by

the learned single Judge to that extent. Save for this limited

modification, the writ appeal is otherwise dismissed.

Sd/-DR. A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

Sd/-MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

JUDGE

dlk/23.8.2023