2012 (12) TMI 950 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Penalty imposed under section 67 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Held that - Reading of the Intelligence Officer s order shows that on facts he was satisfied that the request belatedly made by the petitioner was intended only for prolonging the proceedings. As far as the first contention is concerned, it should be stated that on both the previous occasions when the writ petitions were filed by him, the petitioner had not raised this plea that as per exhibits P1 and P1(a), the order could not have been passed by the sixth respondent. Further, the competence of the sixth respondent will depend upon whether he was the competent authority and the scope of the order constituting the team. Answer to the second contention also in my view will depend on the correctness of the finding of the sixth respondent on this aspect. In any case the resolution of both these contentions raised by the senior counsel for the petitioner requires an adjudication of the factual aspects involved in the case and such an adjudication is possible only in a regular appeal, which the petitioner will have to file in terms of the provisions of the Act itself.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to penalty orders issued under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
2. Constitution of the special team for investigation and penalty proceedings.
3. Complaint regarding non-furnishing of documents and permission for cross-examination.
4. Legality of the penalty orders passed by the sixth respondent.
5. Violation of natural justice in declining the request for cross-examining additional witnesses.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged penalty orders issued under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, specifically exhibits P4, P4(a), and P4(b) issued by the sixth respondent. The petitioner, engaged in chicken rearing activities, raised concerns regarding the constitution of a special team for investigation and penalty proceedings under exhibit P1 and P1(a) orders.

2. The petitioner filed writ petitions, including W.P. (C). No. 18763 of 2012, seeking copies of certain documents, and W.P. (C). No. 21795 of 2012, requesting permission to cross-examine witnesses. The court directed the authorities to provide copies of documents and dismissed the second writ petition as premature, as the adjudication proceedings were ongoing.

3. Subsequently, the petitioner sought to cross-examine additional witnesses, but the request was denied by the authority. The authority justified the denial by stating that the petitioner's intention was to prolong the proceedings. The sixth respondent passed exhibit P4 series of orders levying penalties, leading to the filing of the writ petition challenging these orders.

4. The main contentions raised included the authority of the sixth respondent to pass the orders and the alleged violation of natural justice in declining the request for cross-examination. The Special Government Pleader argued that the team was constituted for investigation purposes, and the Intelligence Officer was competent to finalize the proceedings, justifying the sixth respondent's actions.

5. The court emphasized that the resolution of these contentions required an adjudication of factual aspects, suggesting that the petitioner should pursue a regular appeal as per the provisions of the Act. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner had an effective alternative statutory remedy available.

This detailed analysis highlights the issues raised in the judgment, including challenges to penalty orders, constitution of the special team, complaints regarding document furnishing and cross-examination, the legality of orders passed by the sixth respondent, and the violation of natural justice. The court's decision to dismiss the writ petition underscores the importance of pursuing the statutory remedy available to the petitioner for a comprehensive resolution of the case.