Kerala High Court
M/S.Mak Agro Commodities vs The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes on 20 March, 2001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2012/31ST SRAVANA 1934
WP(C).No. 12352 of 2005 (U)
---------------------------
PETITIONER :
---------------------
M/S.MAK AGRO COMMODITIES,
TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD., PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI 36
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, M.A.K. AZAD
AGED 49, S/O.LATE T.MUHAMMED GHANI.
BY ADVS.SRI.VARGHESE C. KURIAKOSE
SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY
SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------------
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
TRIVANDRUM.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
KOTTAYAM.
3. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB),
OFFICE OF INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
(INTELLIGENCE), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM.
R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 20-06-2012, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO. 10403/2012 & CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 22/08/2012 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
...2/-
WP(C).No. 12352 of 2005 (U)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
EXT.P1 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 20.3.2001 SUBMITTED
BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DATED 23-12-2001.
EXT.P3 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR THE YEAR 1999.
EXT.P4 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE FOR THE YEAR 2000-2001.
EXT.P5 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REVISION PETITION.
EXT.P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REVISION PETITION.
EXT.P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 8.7.2003.
EXT.P8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REVISION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT .
EXT.P9 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ACT
DATED 12.1.2004.
EXT.P10 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.10.2004.
EXT.P11 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMON ORDER NO. CR.IBK.1.21 AND 21
A/01 DATED 26.3.02/99-00 & 00-01.
EXT.P12 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO. 1890/2005 ISSUED BY
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES,
ERNAKULAM.
EXT.P13 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SECTION 7 OF THE KERALA REVENUE
RECOVERY ACT DATED 16.3.2012 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, REVENUE
RECOVERY, ERNAKULAM.
(Contd...)
WP(C).No. 12352 of 2005 (U)
EXT.P14 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SECTION 34 OF THE KERALA REVENUE
RECOVERY ACT DATED 16.3.2012 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, REVENUE
RECOVERY, ERNAKULAM.
EXT.P15 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 13.4.2012 PAYMENT OF COST OF
RS. 1,000/- TO THE HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
Mn
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C). Nos. 12352/05, 10403/12,
10938/12 & 12299 of 2012
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2012
JUDGMENT
The issue involved in all these cases relates to the assessment and penalty proceedings finalized by the concerned respondent after observing that, despite granting many an opportunity, the 'books of accounts' were never produced by the concerned assessee, thus leading to the impugned orders. The first two writ petitions (W.P.(C).No12352/2005 and W.P.(C). No.10403/2012) have been filed by the very same Company, while the 3rd one (W.P.(C).No.10938/2012) is by a different Company consisting of the same person as the Managing Director and his wife being the other Director. The last writ petition (W.P. (C).No.12299/2012) is filed by the petitioner in respect of proprietorship concern, who happens to be the Managing Director of the two Companies as mentioned above, while the sole remaining Director is his wife who is also having a proprietorship concern by name 'South Asian Trade Links'.
W.P.C. No.12352/05 & connected cases -2-
2. The four different establishments as above are having separate registrations under the KGST Act and are engaged in similar nature of business dealing with rice, wheat, dal etc., sharing the same roof. While so, there was a search in the premises of the petitioners, by the authorities of Sales Tax Department, on 2.2.2001, when some incriminating materials were traced out. Pursuant to this, notices were given to produce the 'books of accounts' and despite the several adjournments and various communications in between, the opportunity given was not properly utilized by the petitioners, leading to separate orders of assessment and penalty under Section 45A; which forms the subject matter of challenge in the concerned writ petitions. W.P.(C).No. 12352/2005
3. Pursuant to the search and seizure effected on 2.2.2001 as mentioned above, notice dated 7.3.2003 was issued proposing to impose penalty under Section 45A in respect of the assessment year 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. It was followed by another notice dated 15.10.2001 and revised notice dated 30.11.2001. Apart from granting time to file detailed objection, W.P.C. No.12352/05 & connected cases -3- the petitioner was given opportunity of personal hearing as well. On receipt of the notice, the dealer filed a letter dated 20.3.2001 requesting to grant time and also sought to return the documents seized. Notice was issued to the petitioner Company vide letter dated 21.1.2001, 01.06.2001, 02.07.2001, 02.08,2001 and 20.08.2001, with direction to receive back the records recovered and to file objections, if any. On 27.09.2001, the Deputy Manager by name P Mohan Kumar appeared and got back the entire records. Since no reply was filed, notice dated 15.10.2001 was issued, which was served to the party on 18.10.2001.
4. After considering the reply filed by the petitioner on 22.12.2001, the concerned authority arrived at a finding in respect of the year 1999-2000, that the sale of wheat was seen effected from the inter state purchase and the petitioner/dealer, despite being the first seller liable to pay tax, however showed the sales turnover as 'exempted turnover' and claimed regular exemption without any supporting documentary evidence. Accordingly, the sales turn over was treated as suppressed taxable turnover. In respect of the year 2000-2001 also, the W.P.C. No.12352/05 & connected cases -4- explanation offered was held as not correct or sustainable and accordingly, as per Ext.P11 order dated 26.3.2002, penalty was imposed in respect of both the years.
5. Being aggrieved of Ext.P11 order the petitioner preferred Exts.P5 and P6 revision petitions before the second respondent. After considering the matter in detail, Ext.P7 common order was passed, declining to interfere in Ext.P5 revision pertaining to the assessment year 1999-2000, while penalty ordered in respect of the year 2000-2001 was set aside and it was remanded for fresh consideration.
6. The petitioner/dealer preferred a further revision before the first respondent by way of Ext.P8, in respect of the assessment year 1999-2000. After a thorough analysis of the facts and figures, the first respondent confirmed Ext.P7 order, simultaneously dropping the 'suo moto' revision taken in respect of Ext.P7 order passed by the second respondent for the year 2000-2001. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P11 original order, Ext.P7 order in first revisional exercise and Ext.P10 order passed by the second revisional authority in this writ petition. W.P.C. No.12352/05 & connected cases -5-
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and after going through the materials on record, this Court finds that all the relevant facts and figures have been discussed in detail by the second respondent while passing Ext.P7 order and so also by the first respondent in Ext.P10 order. The factual position has been analysed with proper application of mind in the light of the available materials on record, which does not suffer from any infirmity, either legal or factual. This being the position, no further fact adjudication is warranted, nor is sustainable at the hands of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; more so, when there is no violation of 'principles of natural justice'.
W.P.(C).No.10403/2012
8. The petitioner Company is stated as aggrieved of Ext.P9 and P10 orders, the former in respect of the punishment imposed under Seciton 45A for the assessment year 2000-2001, while the latter, in respect of the assessment for the same year. The proceedings which led to Ext.P9 order are based on Ext.P1 and P2 W.P.C. No.12352/05 & connected cases -6- orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes and Commissioner, Commercial Taxes respectively in the first and second rounds of revision, against the imposition of penalty by the concerned authority. Ext.P1 and P2 orders were in fact challenged by the petitioner Company in W.P.(C).No. 12352/2005 and this Court has already found that the above orders are not liable to be intercepted under any circumstances. The only question is weather the consequential order passed by the first respondent vide Ext.P9, followed by the demand notice under the R.R. Act, is correct or sustainable.
9. The grievance of the petitioner is that Ext.P9 order has been passed without any regard to the actual facts and figures and in a hasty manner, without giving proper/adequate/effective opportunity to contest the case. It is stated that, time was sought for in view of the 'coronary by-pass heart surgery' of the brother of the petitioner in Chennai, as detailed in the connected case. The petitioner was never let known as to any further adjournment, while proceeding the matter exparte, which hence is sought to be intercepted in this writ petition. W.P.C. No.12352/05 & connected cases -7-
10. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 1st and 2nd respondents, seeking to sustain the impugned orders, pointing out that, right from the beginning, the petitioner was never in a mood to co-operate with the assessment/penalty proceedings, despite granting many an opportunity, which however was not properly made use of. It is also pointed out that the correspondences in the available addresses were caused to be returned unaccepted and it necessitated service by affixture. It is seen from the materials on record that notices were issued to the petitioner on different dates, as referred to in Ext.P9 itself. The relevant portion of Ext.P9 order, as to the course pursued by the petitioner, is extracted below:
"The notice containing the proposal aforementioned dated 11.02.2011 inviting the dealer's objections was tendered to the Director of the company Mrs. Fareeda Haji Wahid on 14.02.2011 in person by the undersigned. But she refused to accept the notice. Hence the notice was served by affixture. Moreover the notice send by speed post with acknowledgement due also was not accepted by the dealer in spite of proper intimation to the dealer. In view of the aforementioned circumstances, i.e., stubborn and W.P.C. No.12352/05 & connected cases -8- deliberate refusal by the dealer company's directors to accept the notice with the proposal issued by this office, there is no other option but to confirm the proposal under presumption that the dealer has no objection to the proposal made. Hence the proposal above mentioned is confirmed as follows."
11. With regard to the assessment finalized in respect of the year 2000-2001 as per Ext.P10, it is seen that the notice sent by the departmental authorities was returned 'unclaimed' and hence notice was served by affixture. The relevant portion of Ext.P10 reads as follows:
"The notice containing the above proposal dated 31.01.2011 inviting objection if any was issued to the assessee by registered post in the last known business place of the assessee Company as well as to the permanent address of the Directors of the Company. All the notices were returned by the postal authorities with the endorsement 'unclaimed'. Hence the notice was served by affixture. Remarks seen in the cover such as 'Deposit 10 days' intimation given and finally 'unclaimed' evidencing deliberate W.P.C. No.12352/05 & connected cases -9- attempt from the part of the assessee to evade from accepting the Statutory notice issued from this office and thereby from the assessment proceedings. The notices are treated as served upon the assessee under Section 55B (b)(c) read with Rule 63(b)
(c)(d) of the KGST Act & Rules. In the circumstances the proposal contained in the pre assessment notice are examined with reference to the available data on record."
12. From the above, it is seen that, but for the lame excuses, no effective steps were taken by the petitioner Company to have responded to the notice issued for finalization of proceedings, which was pending for quite long. It has also to be borne in mind, that the petitioner is not a 'layman' or an individual, but a Company incorporated under the relevant provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, who could have ensured proper representation before the concerned authority, through the Company Secretary, the Chartered Accountant, Lawyer if any, or such other authorised representative. There is absolutely no basis for referring to the ailment of the brother of W.P.C. No.12352/05 & connected cases -10- the Manging Director of the Company, to have evaded the process of law by the Company. This Court finds that the finalization of the proceedings as per Ext.P9 and P10 in respect of the penalty and assessment proceedings for the year 2000-2001 against the petitioner Company does not call any interference. W.P.(C).No.10938/2012
13. Assessment proceedings in respect of the years 1999- 2000 and 2000-2001 and penalty proceedings in respect of the year 2000-2001 are under challenge in this writ petition filed by the petitioner Company. Pursuant to the search and seizure effected in the premises of the petitioner Company, Ext.P4 order dated 10.02.2011 was passed by the first respondent, imposing penalty under Section 45A of the KGST Act. After completing the procedural formalities, the assessment was also finalized in respect of the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, as per Ext.P5 and P6 orders dated 23.2.2011 and 1.3.2011 respectively, passed by the second respondent. It is discernible from the pleadings and records produced that there were different stages/rounds of litigation including by approaching this W.P.C. No.12352/05 & connected cases -11- Court by filing W.P.(C).No.13871/2005. After issuing notice under Section 17(3) of the KGST Act inviting objections and also after giving an opportunity of personal hearing, the proceedings were pursued further. As the opportunity given was not utilized, a notice was sent by registered post to the petitioner Company in its address and so also to the Directors in their residential address, which was caused to be returned as 'unclaimed', despite serving intimation in this regard by the postal authorities. It was in the said circumstances that the assessment proceedings were finalized as per Ext.P5 and P6 orders. The observation in Ext.P5 in this regard is as follows:
"The notice under Section 17(3) of the Act containing the above proposal was sent by registered post to the Company address as well as directors residential address. The postal authorities returned the covers containing the proposal noting the 'unclaimed' also with endorsement "
"
Therefore the notice is treated as served.
In the above state of affairs it is evidently clear that the dealer have no book of accounts of his business transaction to produce before the W.P.C. No.12352/05 & connected cases -12- assessing authority. Hence they are deliberately evade from the procedure of completing the assessment for 1999-2000. In the circumstances, I have no other go but to proceed with the assessment and hence the final assessment of the dealer for 1999-2000 under KGST Act 1963 is completed as under."
Similar observation in Ext.P6 order in respect of the assessment year 2000-2001 reads as follows:
"The notice U/S 17(3) of the KGST Act 1963 dt. 1.2.2011 containing the above proposal inviting objection if any, was sent to the dealer as well as to the residential address of the directors. 1. Sri. M.A.K. Azad (Managing Director) 2. Smt. Farida Haji Vaheed (Director) by registered speed post. According to the notice dealer was afforded a personal hearing also on 3.3.2011 in the matter.
The cover containing the notice addressed to the Company address was returned by the postal authorities noting endorsement "Left".
But the cover containing the notice address of both the directors are also returned by the postal authorities with endorsement.
"Intimation sticked on 23.2.2011, 24.2.2011 and 25.2.2011, unclaimed"
Though the postal authorities have served intimation the consecutive days the dealer had W.P.C. No.12352/05 & connected cases -13- not turned up to accept the letter. Form the above fact is evidently clear that the dealer is willfully evading from the procedure of completing the final assessment for the year 2000-01.
Therefore the notice is treated as served. But the dealer had neither filed any reply nor availed the opportunity of hearing. In the circumstances, the final assessment in respect of the dealer for the year 2000-01 is completed as under as proposed in the notice dtd. 1.2.2011."
14. From the above, it is seen that, but for the vague averment and lame excuse, no effective steps were taken by the petitioner Company to have responded to the notice issued for finalization of proceedings, which was pending for quite long. As mentioned already, the petitioner is not a 'layman' or an individual, but a Company incorporated under the relevant provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, who could have ensured proper representation before the concerned authority through the Company Secretary, the Chartered Accountant, Lawyer if any, or such other authorised representative. Hence interference is not called for in this writ petition. W.P.C. No.12352/05 & connected cases -14- W.P.(C).No.12299/2012
15. This is a petition filed by the proprietor of an individual establishment who happens to be the Managing Director of the two Companies already dealt with. The challenge is in respect of Ext.P8 assessment order in respect of the assessment year 2001-
02. The main contention is that Ext.P5 statement of objections dated 17.1.2011 as well as the request therein seeking for 30 days' time to produce the books of accounts, has not been properly considered while proceeding with haste and finalizing the assessment, mulcting huge liability upon the petitioner.
16. The case of the petitioner is that there was a search and seizure in the petitioner's premises and in the premises of the other three sister concerns on 2.2.2001. Pursuant to the incriminating circumstances traced out, penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 45A against the two Companies and also against the two proprietorship concerns, one of which belongs to the petitioner and other one to his wife. The penalty proceedings in respect of two proprietorship concerns were compounded and those in respect of the Companies were contested. The issue W.P.C. No.12352/05 & connected cases -15- involved is only with regard to the assessment for the year 2001- 2002;
17. In respect of the year 2001-2002, the petitioner had filed annual return showing a total turnover of Rs.76,95,040/- and taxable turnover of Rs.69,86,501.50/-. While so, Ext.P1 notice dated 25.11.2010 was issued by the first respondent under Section 17(3) of the KGST Act, as to the assessment proposed. It was followed by Ext.P2 revised notice dated 31.12.2010. The petitioner was also served with Ext.P3 notice dated 6.1.2011 as to the personal hearing scheduled on 21.1.2011. On receipt of Ext.P1 and P2 notices, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 reply dated 17.1.2011 explaining the facts and figures, also seeking for 30 days time to produce the books of accounts. It was pointed out that the petitioner was not in station, having been away with his family in Chennai, right from 21.12.2010, as the elder brother of the petitioner was seriously ill and admitted in the Apollo Hospital in connection with a major by-pass (heart) surgery. In order to prove the factual position, the petitioner has produced photocopies of the hotel bills showing the stay from 21.12.2010 W.P.C. No.12352/05 & connected cases -16- to 11.1.2011 as Ext.P4.
18. It was pointed out by the petitioner, that the age old records in respect of the assessment order passed about ten years ago had to be traced out, which required some time. After a brief visit to Ernakulam, the petitioner and his wife returned to Chennai and were staying in a lodge by name 'New Lakshmi Lodge' in Chennai till 11.1.2011, the day on which the petitioner's brother was discharged from the hospital. Ext.P6 is the 'check out bill' issued from 'New Lakshmi Lodge' on 15.2.2011, as to the subsequent events. It is without any regard to the above vital fact, that the assessment was hastely completed on 22.2.2011 as per Ext.P8 order; which however was not communicated to the petitioner at any point of time, while setting the machinery under the R.R. Act in motion as per Ext.P7 demand notice. On coming to know about the assessment order relating to the R.R. Proceedings, the petitioner applied for and obtained a copy of the same. It is stated that the observation in Ext.P8 assessment order, that the petitioner did not respond to the notice issued and that the notice of personal hearing sent to the petitioner was W.P.C. No.12352/05 & connected cases -17- returned as 'unclaimed', are not at all correct or proper, more so since, there was nobody in the residence at Ernakulam to have had it returned unclaimed; the petitioner and his family having already gone to Chennai and were there from 18.1.2011 almost till the middle of February 2011, as borne out by the hotel bills. The main contention is that, the impugned order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice.
19. The first respondent has filed a statement pointing out the sequence of events and the circumstances under which Ext.P8 order had to be passed, finalizing the assessment, because of non-co-operation from the part of the petitioner. Copies of the various notices sent and the postal acknowledgment cards returned have been produced as Annexures R1(a) to R1(e). The factum of filing of Ext.P5 reply by the petitioner on 17.1.2011, however stands admitted, as conceded in paragraph '6' of the statement, which reads as follows:
"On the basis of the reply filed, again a notice dtd. 24.01.2011 issued affording personal hearing on W.P.C. No.12352/05 & connected cases -18- 10.02.2011. But the dealer refused to receive the cover containing the above notice. Hence the postal authorities returned the cover by noting in Malayalam.
"The cover is returned since the addressee is not received it though intimation issued." True copy of the cover is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R1(e)."
It is further stated in paragraph '10' that the assessing authority had to complete the final assessment, in the above circumstances and that the assessment orders and demand notice were sent by registered post, which were also caused to be returned by the postal authorities with the endorsement as: "intimation issued returned".
20. On going through the materials on record, it is seen that much reliance is sought to be placed on Annexure R1(e), copy of the postal cover, which was returned allegedly for having refused to be accepted, despite serving the intimation. It is in respect of the 'personal hearing' scheduled on 10.2.2011. But the specific averment of the petitioner in the writ petition is that W.P.C. No.12352/05 & connected cases -19- the petitioner/assessee was away in Chennai in connection with the admission of the petitioner's brother in the Appollo Hospital, Chennai, for a long period, which is not specifically disputed anywhere in the counter affidavit. Absence of the petitioner at the address at Ernakulam, because of the unforeseen circumstances in connection with the treatment, the support & personal care/presence of the petitioner required in Chennai and the stay of the petitioner in the near-by lodge by name 'New Lakshmi Lodge', as borne by Ext.P4 Bills for the period from 21.12.2010 to 11.01.2011 and similarly from 25.01.2011 to 15.02.2011 as borne by Ext.P6 Bills showing the room rent and such other charges, are not sought to be rebutted in the counter affidavit. So also, there is no case for the respondents that the above documents produced by the petitioner are false or fabricated in any manner. Unlike the case of the petitioners in other three writ petitions (where it is a Company), this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner in his individual capacity, being the owner of the proprietorship concern, who is the assessee.
W.P.C. No.12352/05 & connected cases -20-
21. It remains a fact that, while the assessment is in respect of the year 2001-2002, Section 17(3) notice was issued by the assessing authorities only on 25.11.2010/31.12.2010 (Exts.P1/P2). When the assessing officer laments more in Ext.P8 assessment order, that the assessment is 'long pending' and it has to be finalized before 31.03.2011 and that the matter is being protracted by the petitioner/assessee, there is absolutely no explanation as to why the assessment proceedings are delayed for more than '8' years, at the hands of the respondents, who admittedly chose to issue Section 17(3) notice only by November/December of the year 2010. No case is projected as to any contribution from the part of the petitioner/assessee in having caused the delay. The assessing officer having been informed of the particular facts and circumstances as to the unavoidable circumstances involved, the hospitalization of the brother of the petitioner (as stated in the last paragraph of Ext.P5), ought to have approached the issue in a more pragmatic manner, than displaying a pedantic approach. There is no point in driving the petitioner to pursue the remedy by way of appeal W.P.C. No.12352/05 & connected cases -21- and this Court finds that an opportunity has necessarily to be given to the petitioner to produce the books of accounts in respect of the 'proprietorship concern' of the petitioner, before the proceedings are finalized. As such, Ext.P8 assessment order and Exts.P7/P7(a) R.R. Notices have necessarily to go.
22. In the result, Writ Petitions 12352/2005, 10403/2012 and 10938/2012, filed by the concerned Companies are found as devoid of any merit and they are dismissed accordingly. This however shall be without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the said petitioners to avail the statutory remedy in accordance with law.
23. In W.P(C).No.12299/2012 filed by the petitioner/individual assessee in respect of the proprietorship concern, Ext.P8 assessment order and Exts.P7/P7(a) R.R. notices are set aside. The first respondent is directed to pass fresh orders after giving an opportunity to produce the books of accounts and for hearing, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner is W.P.C. No.12352/05 & connected cases -22- directed to appear before the first respondent with all the books of accounts and such other records on 10.9.2012 between 10 am and 11 am or such other day to which the case is adjourned by the first respondent. It is open for the petitioner to appear either himself or through the duly authorized representative and no adjournment needs to be granted under any circumstances, but for compelling reasons to the satisfaction of the first respondent, however ensuring that the time schedule as mentioned hereinbefore is not varied.
This writ petition is allowed. No costs.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
Kp/-