Kerala High Court
P.R.Renjith vs Intelligence Officer on 1 February, 2024
Author: P Gopinath
Bench: P Gopinath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 12TH MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 33164 OF 2016
PETITIONER:
P.R.RENJITH
PROPRIETOR, PSSR GOLD, GANDHI NAGAR, KOKKALI,
THRISSUR- 680 007.
BY ADV SRI.TOMSON T.EMMANUEL
RESPONDENT:
1 INTELLIGENCE OFFICER
SQUAD NO.II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ATTINGAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 101.
2 INTELLIGNECE INSPECTOR
SQUAD NO.II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ATTINGAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 101.
3 COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER
COMMERCIAL TAX COMPLEX, POOTHOLE, THRISSUR
PIN- 680 004.
4 COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL OF TAXES
TAX TOWER, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PIN- 695 022.
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. THUSHARA JAMES (SR.GP)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C.)NO.33164 OF 2016
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 01st day of February, 2024
The petitioner is a registered dealer in Thrissur
District under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003
(hereinafter referred to as 'the KVAT Act'). He has
approached this Court, aggrieved by Ext.P11 order
imposing penalty upon him, under Section 47(6) of the
KVAT Act. Ext.P11 is an order issued by the
Intelligence Officer, Squad No.II, Commercial Taxes,
Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the issue raised in the above
Writ Petition, regarding the jurisdiction of the officer at
Attingal to pass an order imposing penalty on the
petitioner is covered in favour of the petitioner by a
judgment of this Court in M/s. Berger Paints India
Ltd. v. The Intelligence Officer, (Judgment dated
09.01.2017 in W.P.(C.) No.40332 of 2016), where, this
W.P.(C.)NO.33164 OF 2016
Court has taken a view that, in the light of the Sub
Rule(6) of Rule 67 of the KVAT Act, 2005, where the
assessee has a principal place of business within the
State of Kerala, the Intelligence Officer having
jurisdiction over the said place alone can complete the
adjudication of penalty proceedings under Section
47(6) of the KVAT Act.
3. The learned Senior Government Pleader does
not seriously dispute the fact that the issue stands
covered as above, by the judgment of this Court in
M/s. Berger Paints India Ltd. (Supra).
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader and
having perused the judgment of this Court in
M/s. Berger Paints India Ltd. (Supra), I am of the
view that there is considerable merit in the contention
taken by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that,
Ext.P11 order imposing penalty, could have been
issued only by the Officer, having territorial jurisdiction
W.P.(C.)NO.33164 OF 2016
in the District, where the principal place of business of
the assessee is situated.
5. The learned Senior Government Pleader would
point out that from Ext.P11 order, it is seen that the
request of the petitioner for transfer of the
proceedings to Thrissur was on account of the illness
and further, the petitioner had failed to produce any
accounts or documents before the Officer who passed
Ext.P11 order, to substantiate his case.
6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader and
having perused the judgment of this Court in M/s.
Berger Paints India Ltd. (Supra), I am of the view
that Ext.P11 order is liable to be set aside, as it was
issued by the Intelligence Officer, who has no
jurisdiction over the principal place of business of the
petitioner. Accordingly, Ext.P11 is quashed. The
notices issued to the petitioner by the 1st respondent
will be treated to be the notices issued by the Officer,
W.P.(C.)NO.33164 OF 2016
having territorial jurisdiction in the District, where the
principal place of business of the assessee is situated.
The petitioner will file reply to the notices before the
said Officer, within a period of one month from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Thereafter, the said Officer will consider the objections
filed by the petitioner and take a fresh decision in the
matter, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner. Since the post of Intelligence Inspector is no
longer available (on account of the change in
designation of officers), the Commissioner of State
Taxes will nominate an officer having jurisdiction over
the principal place of business of the petitioner, to
complete the proceedings in accordance with the law.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
NB/1-2
W.P.(C.)NO.33164 OF 2016
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33164/2016
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED
26.05.2014 ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY 3RD RESPONDENT
UNDER THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF SALESMAN PERMIT DATED 15.04.2016, U/
S 19(3) ISSUED TO PETITIONER, BY 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF PURCHASE ORDER DATED 04.07.2016,
ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY AL-AMEEN JEWELERS,
THIRUVNANTHAPURAM, WITH RS. 88,000/- AS ADVANCE.
EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT NO. 2441 DATED 04.07.2016
ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY CGR TRAVANCORE HALLMARKS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.89/16-17 DATED 04.07.2016
ISSUED TO PETITIONER U/S 47(2) OF KVAT ACT, BY
1ST RESPONDENT, AFTER RECOVERING THE DOCUMENTS.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 07.07.2016 SUBMITTED
BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT AGAINST EXT. P4.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 14.07.2016 IN W.P.C
NO. 23300 OF 2016 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 15.07.2016 IN RELEASING
GOODS, ALONG WITH CASH RECEIPT FOR RS. 2,17,950/-
BEING 25% OF SECUTIRY DEPOSIT ISSUED TO
PETITIONER BY 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF REQUEST DATED 09.08.2016 IN
RELEASING GOODS, ALONG WITH CASH RECEIPT FOR RS.
2,17,950/- BEING 25% OF SECURITY DEPOSIT ISSUED
TO PETITIONER BY 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 18.08.2016 ISSUED TO
PETITONER BY 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF LETTER SENT TO 1ST RESPONDENT, BY
PETITIONER SPEED POST ON 25.08.2016, COMMUNICATED
ON 30.08.2016, IN REMINDING FOR TRANSFER OF FILE
TO THRISSUR.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF EX-PARTLY ORDER DATED 26.09.2016
PASSED U/S 47(6) OF THE KVAT ACT, BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT, WITHOUT CONSIDERING EXT P8 AND P10
REQUESTS OF PETITIONER FOR TRANSFER TO THRISSUR
DISTRICT.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A. TO JUDGE
