The petitioner is challenging correctness and sustainability of Ext.P6 assessment order issued by the 2nd respondent for the assessment year 2013-14. The case of the petitioner is that on receipt of Ext.P1 assessment notice the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 reply dated 11.08.2014. Subsequently, the petitioner sought for copies of certain documents as per Ext.P4 dated 18.10.2014. But without considering the same, assessment came to be finalised as per Ext.P6, which in turn is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
3. Going through the materials on record it is seen that the request for serving copy of the documents was made by the petitioner as per Ext.P4 only on 18.10.2014, which in fact was filed only much later on 21.10.2014 as discernible from the said proceedings. The assessment was finalised as per Ext.P6 on a prior date ie; on 15.10.2014 by the concerned authority, after verification of the 'Books of Accounts'. Even otherwise, on receipt WP(c). No.29724 of 2014 2 of Ext.P2 notice, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 reply on 11.082014 and nothing prevented the petitioner from producing copies of the documents at that time or within a reasonable time thereafter, before finalisation of the proceedings as per Ext.P6. However, this Court does not propose to express any opinion with regard to the merits involved, but for holding that this is not a fit case to call for interference in a writ petition.
4. Accordingly, interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed, however, without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to pursue statutory remedy by way of appeal, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
Pn