The petitioner is a registered dealer in marble. For the assessment year 2001-2002, pursuant to a shop inspection that was conducted at her business premises on 30.01.2002, she was served with a notice under Section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the KGST Act' for short) on 29.11.2002. In response to the said notice, the petitioner submitted a reply seeking some more time for producing material to substantiate her contention with regard to the non-sustainability of the proposal in the notice issued to her. It is stated that thereafter by Ext.P1 order dated 01.09.2003, the 3rd respondent confirmed a penalty of Rs.1,10,000/- on the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision before the 2nd respondent. By Ext.P2 order dated 16.01.2004, the 2nd respondent dismissed the revision application. The petitioner therefore preferred a second revision before the 1st respondent. By Ext.P3 order dated 19.11.2005, the said revision was also dismissed by the 1st respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that, pursuant to Ext.P3 order, the entire amount that was confirmed against her by way of penalty was paid to the department. In the writ petition, Exts.P1, P2 and P3 are impugned, inter alia, on the ground that the said orders were passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of showing cause against the proposed penalty. It is also contended that the imposition of penalty has been done on an arbitrary basis.
2. I have heard Sri.P.T.Antony, the learned counsel for the petitioner and also Smt.K.T.Lilly, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I note that the main contention of the petitioner in her challenge against the order of penalty is that she was not afforded an opportunity for rebutting the contentions against her, in the notice issued to her under Section 45A of the KGST Act. On a perusal of Exts.P1 and P2 orders of the 3rd and 2nd respondents respectively, it is seen that while the petitioner had sought for an adjournment of one month to produce the books of accounts, which according to her were submitted for statutory audit work at Kozhikode, the respondent authority granted her time up to 13.06.2003. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 01.07.2003 and 25.08.2003. It was on finding that, despite the time granted to her, the petitioner had not produced the books of accounts and other documents to substantiate her contentions against the proposed penalty, that the respondent authorities were constrained to pass final orders. The contention of the petitioner in the writ petition being that there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice, the same have to be viewed in the light of her conduct before the respondent authorities. I notice that it was solely on account of the inaction on the part of the petitioner, in producing the books of accounts, that she was not able to establish with reference to any cogent material that the imposition of penalty on her was not justified. In this view of the matter, I do not see any reason to interfere with Exts.P1, P2 and P3 orders passed by the respondents under the KGST Act.
The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns/