Court Upholds Penalty Order, Rejects Claims of Pre-dated Order.

SURJITH PM Versus THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, MANANTHAVADY

SURJITH PM Versus THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, MANANTHAVADY - TMI Issues: Challenge to penalty order under Section 67 of the KVAT Act based on pre-dated order, violation of principles of natural justice, and remedy available to petitioner.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the penalty order (Ext.P3) issued under Section 67 of the KVAT Act, claiming that the order was pre-dated and passed after the receipt of the objection (Ext.P1). The petitioner argued that he was not informed about the order being passed during the objection filing. The court noted the petitioner's contention but also considered the government pleader's submission that a notice was served on the petitioner on 6.10.2012, providing time to file objections and for a hearing. As the petitioner did not respond to the notice, the Ext.P3 order was issued on 28.11.2012. The court highlighted the discrepancy between the petitioner's claim of a pre-dated order and the government pleader's assertion of the order being a result of the petitioner's failure to respond to the show cause notice.

2. The court, after examining the facts presented, concluded that there was no violation of principles of natural justice warranting interference with Ext.P3. The judgment emphasized that if the petitioner was dissatisfied with Ext.P3, the appropriate course of action would be to pursue statutory remedies available under the law. However, considering the petitioner's claim that the Ext.P3 order was served only on 10.12.2012, the court directed that an appeal against the order would be entertained by the appellate authority if filed within two weeks from the judgment date, irrespective of any delay.

3. In the final disposition, the writ petition was disposed of with the direction for the petitioner to pursue statutory remedies if aggrieved by Ext.P3, while also allowing for an appeal against the order within a specified timeframe. The judgment clarified the position regarding the alleged pre-dated order, the importance of responding to show cause notices, and the appropriate legal recourse available to the petitioner in challenging the penalty order under the KVAT Act.