~~~~~~~~~~~ The petitioner has approached this Court directly by filing the Writ Petition challenging Ext.P3 proceedings imposing penalty under Section 67(1) of the KVAT ACT for the reason that the objection filed by the petitioner vide Ext.P2 in response to Ext.P1 notice proposing to impose penalty has been omitted to be considered and a contrary finding has been rendered in Ext.P3 to the effect that the petitioner has not filed any objections. 2. Pursuant to the instructions obtained from the Department, the learned Government Pleader submits that Ext.P2 reply submitted by the petitioner on 22.8.2014 is very much available in the file. On receipt of the said statement of objections, a further notice was issued to the petitioner on 26.8.2014 to appear for the hearing scheduled on 3.9.2014. There was no appearance on that day and authorised representative of the petitioner appeared only on 7.9.2014. Still, no books of accounts were produced, and hence, the W.P.(C) No.28935/2014 2 proceedings were finalised by passing Ext.P3 order.
4. On going through Ext.P3, this Court does not find any reference to the sequence of events as to the filing of Ext.P2 objection. What is stated in Ext.P3 is only that the books of accounts were not produced by the authorised representative. At the same time, it mentions that the notice was served to the assessee on 19.4.2014 but the assessee did not appear or filed objections till date. The order says that notice dated 26.8.2014 was issued to the petitioner directing him to file objections and also granting him an opportunity of personal hearing on 7.9.2014. But in the next sentence, it is stated that the 'no objection' was filed to the proposed penalty. This appears to be very much contrary to the stand taken by the respondents during the course of hearing, to the effect that Ext.P2 is available in the file.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in Ext.P2, the petitioner has categorically asserted that the building concerned has been constructed in the name of the petitioner and that no work contract is involved. Whether the explanation offered from the part of the petitioner as per Ext.P2 is correct or W.P.(C) No.28935/2014 3 sustainable, ought to have been considered by the concerned authority, which exercise obviously has not been done before passing Ext.P3.
5. In the said circumstance, this Court finds that the matter requires to be reconsidered. Accordingly, Ext.P3 is set aside. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the matter, passing fresh orders, also taking note of the statement of objections preferred by the petitioner as per Ext.P2 and also after giving an opportunity of hearing, which task shall be completed without delay, at any rate, within 'six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
6. The petitioner shall produced a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petitioner before the 1st respondent for further steps.
The Writ Petition stands disposed of.
ps/13/11/2014 Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRAMENON, JUDGE.