Kerala High Court
M/S. Balaji Flour Mills vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 11 March, 2016
Author: A.M.Shaffique
Bench: A.M.Shaffique
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/16TH BHADRA, 1938
WP(C).No. 26814 of 2016 (B)
----------------------------
PETITIONER:
-----------
M/S. BALAJI FLOUR MILLS,
KALATHODE, OLLUKKARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, J.BALAJI.
BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON
SMT.MEERA V.MENON
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
1ST CIRCLE, THRISSUR-680001.
2. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI P.K. SHAMSHUDDIN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 07-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
K.V.
WP(C).No. 26814 of 2016 (B)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED 11-03-2016.
EXHIBIT P1(A) COPY OF LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 02-04-2016.
EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE
YEAR 2009-10 DATED 27-05-2016.
EXHIBIT P2(A) COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE
YEAR 2011-12 DATED 27-05-2016.
EXHIBIT P2(B) COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE
YEAR 2012-13 DATED 27-05-2016.
EXHIBIT P2(C) COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE
YEAR 2012-13 DATED 27-05-2016.
EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 07-06-2016.
EXHIBIT P3(A) COPY OF REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 07-06-2016.
EXHIBIT P3(B) COPY OF REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 07-06-2016.
EXHIBIT P3(C) COPY OF REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 07-06-2016.
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED 25-06-2016.
EXHIBIT P4(A) COPY OF LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 02-07-2016.
EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED 11-07-2016.
EXHIBIT P5(A) COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED 11-07-2016.
EXHIBIT P5(B) COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED 11-07-2016.
EXHIBIT P5(C) COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED 11-07-2016.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL
-----------------------
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
K.V.
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J
* * * * * * * * * * * *
W.P.C.No.26814 of 2016
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of September 2016
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner challenges Ext.P5 series of notices issued by the Assessing Officer.
2. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that there is violation of the principles of natural justice. Perusal of Ext.P5 series documents would show that the notices were issued to the petitioner in March 2016 calling upon the petitioner to produce the books of accounts. Still further, the petitioner had given a reply on 02/04/2016. However, further notice was issued on 27/05/2016 granting two weeks' time to produce the books of accounts. But the assessee did not produce the books of accounts till the date of order. Again the petitioner sought for seven days time, by filing a letter on 02/07/2016. Since nothing has been produced until 11/07/2016, order was passed on 11/07/2016. When the petitioner was served with Ext.P4 letter dated 25/06/2016 by which the petitioner was called upon to produce the details within seven days of receipt of the notice, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4(a) letter dated 02/07/2016 requesting W.P.C.No.26814/2016 2 for seven days' time to file the details and appear before the Officer. The contention is that Ext.P4(a) letter was submitted on 04/07/2016 and on the seventh day itself, the impugned order was passed. The argument is that when the petitioner appeared on 11/07/2016, by the time the orders were already passed.
3. Learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, submits that sufficient opportunity had already been granted to the petitioner to produce the books of accounts; but no books of accounts have been produced, which is evident from Exts.P5 series itself. Further, it is submitted that though, by Ext.P4(a) letter dated 02/07/2016, the petitioner sought for seven days time, even after the expiry of the seven days period the petitioner did not appear or produce any documents, which has prompted the officer to pass the order.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P4(a) was submitted only on 04/07/2016 and therefore the Officer should have waited for seven days and should have passed any order only after 12/07/2016.
5. Perusal of the documents would show that though sufficient opportunity had already been granted to the assessee, W.P.C.No.26814/2016 3 no attempt had been made by the petitioner to produce the books of accounts and no details, as sought for, have been produced even on 11/07/2016. Under such circumstances, there is nothing wrong on the part of the Officer to pass an order on 11/07/2016. I do not find any error warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially when an appellate remedy is available to the petitioner. If the petitioner has a contention that any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, it is always open for the petitioner to take up the matter before the appellate authority.
With the above observation, this writ petition is dismissed.
(sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr