The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent, imposing penalty vide Ext.P4 order dated 24.07.2014. The sequence of events narrated in the writ petition shows that, the petitioner was served with Ext.P2 notice dated 30.05.2013, proposing to impose penalty, in response to which, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 reply dated 14.06.2013. It was after considering the same that Ext.P4 order came to be passed on 24.07.2014. It is seen from Ext.P4 that, an opportunity of personal hearing was also given to the petitioner. If the petitioner is aggrieved of the said proceedings, it is always open for the petitioner to pursue statutory remedy as available under the relevant provisions of the KVAT Act.
Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sp