Kerala High Court
M/S.United Medi Systems vs The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes on 21 June, 2010
Author: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 17870 of 2010(G)
1. M/S.UNITED MEDI SYSTEMS, SMART SQUARE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
... Respondent
2. FAST TRACK TEAM,
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.SRIKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :21/06/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
--------------------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 17870 OF 2010
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of June, 2010
JUDGMENT
The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to Ext.P4 assessment order finalized by the Fast Track Team under Section 17 D of the KGST Act without giving any opportunity to produce the relevant document for which the time was sought for as borne by Ext.P3.
2. The sequence of events shows that the earlier assessment finalized under Section 17 by the Fast Track Team by filing WPC 33323/2009 which led to Ext.P1 judgment, whereby the impugned proceedings were set aside being not in conformity with the relevant provisions of law and concerned authority was directed to have it finalized as specified. Pursuant to this, Ext.P2 pre-assessment notice was issued on 23.02.2010 on receipt of which the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 request dated 05.03.2010 projecting the following two points:-
"(1) We applied for getting 2004-05 Assessment order of Chennai branch from TNGST department in order to prove stock transfers from Head Office to Branch. Also we had applied for getting delivery status report from Courier Company for 2004-05 stock transfers.
(2) Please note that we had misplaced the papers received from IMCH Calicut and we had requested them for duplicate copies of the same and we are finding it very difficult to get the same from INCH in the stipulated time frame and we had deputed our representative there for getting the same as early as possible".2 WP(C) No.17870/2010
3. Referring to the inability of the petitioner to procure the documents from Chennai and also from another Government hospital in Calicut a minimum of two weeks' time was sought for as per Ext.P3 request. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P3 was submitted by courier and the same was served to the 3rd respondent on 08.03.2010 as borne by the seal/endorsement on Ext.P3(a). Absolutely no notice whatsoever was issued after submission of Ext.P3. Despite this, the 2nd respondent Fast Track Team pursued with hasty steps to finalise the assessment quite in an arbitrary manner passing Ext.P4, fixing the huge liability upon the shoulder of the petitioner holding that no ...... by the petitioner in spite of opportunity given. The learned counsel submits ........ wrong and illegal and hence liable to be intercepted by this Court.
4. The learned Government Pleader for the respondent submits that the averments and allegations raised by the petitioner in the Writ Petition do not keep the right track of truth referring to the contents of Ext.P4. The learned Government Pleader submits that pursuant to Ext.P3 request made by the petitioner, the time was extended up to 17.03.2010 for production of the documents, which however was not complied with by the petitioner and it was in the said circumstance, the proceedings finalise as borne by Ext.P4, which hence is correct and proper and not assailable under any circumstance.
3 WP(C) No.17870/2010
5. The learned Government Pleader brought to the notice of this Court that as per Ext.P1 judgment, there was an acquired time frame stipulated by this Court and the proceedings had to be finalized within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Since the copy of the certificate on concerned respondent on 22.11.2009 the proceedings finalized on 23.03.2009 and this being the position, the allegation that the respondent is unwarranted is not correct or sustainable.
6. Eventhough there is a question of malafide on the part of the respondent, the admitted fact remains that the limited request made by the petitioner vide Ext.P3 was only to produce the specified documents as referred to under point No. 1 and 2 therein. It is also rather stands conceded that the said request was served to the 2nd respondent as referred to item No. 2 in the impugned order itself. It is also stated therein that taking note of the request, the time was extended upto 17.03.2010. There is absolutely no reference to any further notice, if any, stated as issued to the petitioner as to the extension for time till 17.03.2010, pursuant to the receipt of Ext.P3 on 08.03.2010. There is also no material to substantiate the position as to the adjournment given by virtue of any endorsement, if any, made from the part of the petitioner informing the due date. The submission made from the part of the respondent the petitioner is orally ..... adjournment which does not appear correct or palatable to this 4 WP(C) No.17870/2010 Court. On the basis of the materials produced particularly showing that Ext.P3 request was sent by the petitioner by courier and that the same was served to the respondents only on 08.03.2010 as borne by Ext.P3 receipt issued by the courier.
7. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court on 17.06.2010 to produce the relevant documents before this Court for perusal, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, all the relevant documents are very much at the hands of the petitioner, which accordingly have been placed for consideration. In the above facts and figures borne out by the records and that the bonafides on the part of the petitioner stands rather revealed in view of the steps taken by the petitioner to procure the documents at the actual date on 15.03.2010. This being the position, this Court finds that effective opportunity should be given to the petitioner to satisfy the grievance and to have the matter considered accordingly on the merits.
8. In the said circumstance, Ext.P4 impugned Writ Petition is set aside and the 2nd respondent/Fast Track Team is directed to reconsider the matter and to have it finalized with reference to the documents to be produced by the petitioner as sought for in Ext.P3. The petitioner shall produce all the relevant documents along with the judgment before the 2nd respondent or such other authority within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such event, the matter shall be considered 5 WP(C) No.17870/2010 and finalized by the 2nd respondent/such other authority in accordance with law, of course after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a further period of one month thereafter.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc