Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. The petitioner is a dealer in edible dates and dry fruits. Pursuant to an inspection at its business premises on 16/8/2011, a notice was served on the petitioner to appear with the books of accounts for the purpose of verification by the Commercial Taxes Department. The books of accounts were produced by the petitioner on 13/9/2011 and they were verified. Thereafter, vide notice dated 29/2/2012 issued in terms of Section 67(b) of the KVAT Act, the petitioner was asked to file objections against the proposal for imposing penalty on the allegation that there was detection of stock variation when compared with the entries in the books of accounts. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner approached the Officer concerned through a letter dated 9/3/2012 seeking permission for obtaining copies of the seized records and also time for filing a detailed objection to the notice. The permission sought for by the assessee was granted by the Intelligence Officer who made an endorsement to that effect in the letter submitted to him by the petitioner assessee. There is nothing, however, in the files of the Department, which we have perused during the course of hearing, to indicate that any separate communication with regard to the adjournment, was given to the petitioner assessee. Be that as it may, the proceedings culminated in Annexure C order dated 20/4/2012 of the Intelligence Officer imposing a penalty of Rs.7,02,540/- on the petitioner assessee. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first Appellate Authority, which was dismissed vide Annexure D order. A further appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was also unsuccessful and by Annexure E order the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. It is against the said order that the petitioner is now before us in the revision petition.
2. We heard Sri. V.K.Shamsudheen learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Sri.Sudhesh Kumar the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State.
3. We note that the sole contention that was urged by the petitioner assessee, throughout the proceedings culminating with the order of the Tribunal, was that he had not been given an opportunity to furnish a detailed reply to the notice served on him proposing imposition of penalty. Although the petitioner assessee appears to have obtained copies of the relevant records as early as on 16/3/2012, pursuant to the permission granted to him by the Intelligence Officer, the fact remains that no detailed objection was preferred by the petitioner to the notice prior to the passing of Annexure C order. No doubt, the Government Pleader would submit that the time granted to the petitioner assessee was sufficient for him to go through the records and prefer a detailed reply. However, as we have already noted, although permission is seen granted on 9/3/2012 by the Intelligence Officer, there is nothing on record to show that the said grant of permission was communicated to the petitioner assessee, even though the learned Government Pleader would contend that it was done in the assessee's presence.
4. Having considered the rival submissions and taking note of the fact that this is a case where admittedly the assessee has not preferred a detailed objection to the notice proposing penalty, with reference to the records that were seized from him, we feel that the matter requires fresh consideration at the hands of the Intelligence Officer. In this view of the matter, we set aside Annexure-C order of the Intelligence Officer as also Annexures- D and E orders of the first Appellate Authority and the Appellate Tribunal respectively and direct the Intelligence Officer to decide the issue afresh after hearing the petitioner assessee in the matter. Since the petitioner has already obtained copies of the seized records from the Department and sufficient time has already lapsed during the pendency of these proceedings, we direct the petitioner assessee to file a detailed reply to the notice dated 29/2/2012 within a period of one week from today. Thereafter, the petitioner assessee shall appear before the Intelligence Officer at 11.a.m. on 3rd July, 2014 for a personal hearing in the matter. The Intelligence Officer, shall, then proceed to pass final orders in the matter within a period of one month thereafter.
With the above directions, the revision petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE dpk.
/True copy/ PS to Judge.