By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menon Smt.meera V.menon Sri.mahesh V.menon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/14TH PHALGUNA 1934 WP(C).No. 6074 of 2013 (H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- DR.S.NARAYANAN, NARAYANA AYURVEDA CHIKITSALAYAM, CHITTILAMCHERRY PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ALATHUR 678541, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 678541, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. BY SR GP SMT. SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-03-2013,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P-1COPY OF INVOICE NO.2191 ISSUED BY M/S.KASHMIR PHARMA,PALAKKAD.PALAKKAD. EXT.P1(a)COPY OF INVOICE NO.20527 ISSUED BY M/S.PALGHAT AYURVEDICAGENCIES.AGENCIES. EXT.P1(b)COPY OF INVOICE NO.1266 ISSUED BY M/S.AAVANI AGENCIES,PALAKKAD.PALAKKAD. EXT.P1(c)COPY OF INVOICE NO.252 ISSUED BY M/S.BROTHERS PHARMA,PALAKKAD.PALAKKAD. EXT.P1(d)COPY OF INVOICE NO.6052 ISSUED BY M/S.AISWARYA AYURVEDICAGENCIES, PALAKKAD.AGENCIES, PALAKKAD. EXT.P1(e)COPY OF INVOICE NO.618 ISSUED BY M/S.G.P.AGENCIES, PALAKKAD. EXT.P-2COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P-3COPY OF REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1STRESPONDENT.RESPONDENT. EXT.P-4COPY OF PURCHASE CERTIFICATE BY THE AISWARYA AYURVEDICAGENCIES.AGENCIES. EXT.P4(a)COPY OF PURCHASE CERTIFICATE BY THE LAKSHMI AYURVEDIC EXT.P4(b)COPY OF PURCHASE CERTIFICATE BY THE G.P.AGENCIES.EXT.P4(c)COPY OF PURCHASE CERTIFICATE BY THE KASHMIR PHARMA.EXT.P4(c)COPY OF PURCHASE CERTIFICATE BY THE KASHMIR PHARMA. EXT.P4(d)COPY OF PURCHASE CERTIFICATE BY THE BROTHERS PHARMA. EXT.P4(e)COPY OF PURCHASE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE AVANI AGENCIES. EXT.P4(f)COPY OF PURCHASE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PALGHAT AYURVEDICAGENGIES.AGENGIES. EXT.P-5COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. /true copy/ sd/- P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).6074/2013 - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5[th] day of March, 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P5 an assessment order passedagainst him for the assessment year 2009-10. A reading of Ext.P5shows that the claim of the petitioner for exemption has beendenied on the ground that the purchase bills produced by him didnot satisfy the requirement of Rule 10(K) of the KVAT Rules. 2.However, case of the petitioner is that subsequent to thereceipt of the pre assessment notice, petitioner got the purchasebills sealed by his sellers and produced those documents beforethe Assessing Officer. It is stated that despite the production ofthe documents, the benefit has been declined to him. 3.A reading of the assessment order shows that the AssessingOfficer has found that, subsequent sealing of the documents is amanipulated criminal act of the assessee to stamp the billssubsequent to its verification. On this basis, the Assessing Officerhas concluded that there was a deliberate attempt to evade tax. Thus, the Assessing Officer, for his own reasons, found that thedocuments produced by the petitioner was unacceptable.Therefore, the question whether these documents are to beaccepted or not is a matter which can be decided only in astatutory appeal. In such circumstances, I am of the view that theremedy available to the petitioner against Ext.P5 is to pursuestatutory remedy of appeal. 3.A reading of the assessment order shows that the AssessingOfficer has found that, subsequent sealing of the documents is amanipulated criminal act of the assessee to stamp the billssubsequent to its verification. On this basis, the Assessing Officerhas concluded that there was a deliberate attempt to evade tax. Thus, the Assessing Officer, for his own reasons, found that thedocuments produced by the petitioner was unacceptable.Therefore, the question whether these documents are to beaccepted or not is a matter which can be decided only in astatutory appeal. In such circumstances, I am of the view that theremedy available to the petitioner against Ext.P5 is to pursuestatutory remedy of appeal. 4.Therefore, I decline to interfere with Ext.P5 and direct that itwill be open to the petitioner to pursue statutory remedy of appealagainst Ext.P5. It is also directed that if an appeal is filed withinten days from today, the appellate authority will entertain thesame and consider the appeal on merits. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mrcs /true copy/ sd/- P.A. To Judge