The petitioners have approached this Court with a common grievance, whereby the assessment has been finalised in respect of the concerned assessment year without granting sufficient and effective opportunity to putforth the version of the petitioners in response to the pre-assessment notice. The grievance is more with regard to non-furnishing of copies of the relevant documents sought to be relied on; by virtue of which. the petitioners are not in a position to avail the statutory remedy as well.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that there was an inspection on the premises of the petitioner on 1.8.2014, pursuant to which some incriminating documents were allegedly , traced out , based on which penalty was proposed to be issued. The petitioners preferred Exts.P3 series requests to issue photocopies of the relevant documents sought to be relied on, as the entire documents /records were seized by the concerned officer at the time of inspection. Though permission was granted, the concerned officer insisted to have copies of the documents taken on the same date, which infact was not possible due to various constraints. The petitioners subsequently deputed an employee, when 'authorization' was required to be produced. It was accordingly, that an authorised employee turned up before the concerned respondent, but the documents were not served to the petitioners and penalty proceedings came to be finalised.
3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that there was default/lapses on the part of the petitioners right from the beginning in all respects . Based on the materials/documents traced out from the premises of the petitioners, notice was given to the petitioners , but no proper objections were filed before finalisation of the proceedings. The requests made by the petitioners vide Exts.P3 series were produced before the concerned respondent only on 04.10.2014 and considering the request, permission was granted on the same date itself. But the petitioners were reluctant to take photocopies on the said day, who simply returned. Photocopies of the documents were never taken, nor was there any objection with regard to the proposal. It is also stated that the communication stated as sent by way of Ext.P5 was never served to the departmental officers before finalisation of the proceedings. Ext.P5 (request for permission to take photocopies) communication is dated 08.10.2014, whereas the orders imposing penalty were passed on 09.10.2014. The learned Government Pleader also points out that, even now there is absolutely no objection for the concerned respondent to serve photocopies of the documents which are required by the petitioners.
4. In the said circumstance, the petitioners are set at liberty to obtain photocopies of the relevant documents at the cost of the petitioners and the same shall be served to the petitioners as and when the request is placed and the requirements are satisfied. It is open for the petitioners to move the appellate authority for availing the statutory remedy, if aggrieved of the impugned orders. Without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioners in this regard both the writ petitions are dismissed. For enabling the petitioners to pursue further steps, coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance for a period of 'two weeks'.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk