9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 1059X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been caused to the petitioner and that the contentions to the contrary raised in the writ petition are absolutely without any merit or bona fides W.P. dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s notices were issued by the fifth respondent proposing to impose penalty under the KGST Act, KVAT Act and Kerala Taxes on Luxuries Act, followed by a series of correspondence and communications between the petitioner and the fifth respondent. It was during the pendency of the said proceedings that the petitioner approached this court by filing W.P. (C) No. 9789 of 2009 challenging the proceedings and seeking to return the original documents seized from the petitioner. By virtue of the interim order passed by this court, as borne by exhibit P16, the concerned authority was permitted to proceed with further steps and to pass appropriate orders, as aforesaid. It is revealed that, subsequent to the said interim order, the fifth respondent considered the facts and figures and passed exhibits P24 and P25 series final orders, confirming the penalty as proposed. Aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by the fifth respondent, the petitioner took up the matter by filing appeals before the seventh respondent, the competent authority in this regard. Exhibit P26 series and exhibit P27 series appeals were also accompanied by exhibit P29 series petitions to condone the delay and exhibit P30 se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er (third respondent before this court), This being the position reliance is placed on the decisions cited supra, with reference to section 28(6) of the KGST Act and the "proviso" thereunder and similar provisions of the other statutes do not hold good. The learned senior counsel with reference to the "proviso" to section 67(1)(l) submits that the penalty proceedings have to be finalized within a period of "one" year, in the manner as provided thereunder. The date of inspection in the premises as borne by exhibits P2 series "SIRs" being November 29, 2007, the impugned orders (exhibit P24 series and P25 series) passed in June and July 2009 are stated as barred by limitation. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, with specific reference to the amendment brought about by virtue of the Finance Act 2009, submits that the period stipulated under the above "proviso", has been raised from one year to "three years" with effect from April 1, 2005. This by itself shows, that three years' period will expire only in the year 2010 and not any time before and hence the plea raised with reference to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hree" years. It is also brought to the notice of this court, with reference to the questionnaire submitted by the petitioner invoking the provisions under the Right to Information Act and the answers given, that the Department has not taken any prosecution steps so far. However, the learned Government Pleader submits that the issuance of exhibit P1 does not mean that the Department has decided not to pursue any prosecution steps at all, more so when the relevant provision does not place any bar in resorting to such prosecution proceedings. However, considering the fact that the Department is yet to finalise whether any prosecution steps have to be taken or not, the Department shall consider and finalise the same as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the seized records/documents shall be returned to the petitioner, subject to the decision to be taken as above. Considering the persuasive submissions made by the senior counsel and also taking note of the turn of events right from 2007, the next question to be considered is whether the recovery steps being pursued against the petitioner pursuant to exh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
