In response to Exts.P1 to P3 notices proposing to impose penalty under Section 67(1) of the KVAT Act, the petitioner submitted Exts.P4 to P6 replies. However, the proceedings came to be finalised by the 3rd respondent as per Exts.P7 to P9 orders, which are under challenge in this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that, the course and procedure pursued by the concerned respondent is per se wrong and illegal in all respects as the 3rd respondent has ventured into an exercise, whereby the classification dispute has been wrongly decided in a penalty proceedings, which cannot be a proper course in view of the decision reported in 2014 (3)
KHC 55 [Chakkiath Brothers Vs. Assistant Commissioner,
Commercial Taxes, Ekm. and others].
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
4. After hearing both the sides and after going through the materials on record, this Court finds that there is considerable W.P.(C) No.33728 of 2014 2 force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
In the said circumstances, this Court finds that the matter requires to be considered in the light of the ruling rendered by this Court as per the decision cited supra. Accordingly, Exts.P7 to P9 orders are set aside and the matter is directed to be reconsidered by the 3rd respondent. This shall be done after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also in the light of the observation in 2014 (3) KHC 55 (cited supra). Proceedings as above shall be finalised at the earliest, at any rate, within 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of the writ petition, before the 3rd respondent, for further steps.
The writ petition is disposed of.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sp