M/s. ROSE HOUSE Versus THE STATE OF KERALA, REP BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAXES SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, STATE TAX OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE STATE TAX OFFICER, IRINJALAKUDA, THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, THRISSUR AND THE INTELLIGENCE INSEPCTOR, ERNAKULAM – 2018 (12) TMI 486 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI – Service of notice – the Intelligence Officer set the petitioner ex-parte and issued the Ext.P5 penalty proceedings – principles of natural justice.
–
Whether the petitioner has been served a statutory notice or in the alternative, whether there is any deemed service of notice on the petitioner?
–
Held that:- Given the penal consequence that flow from Ext.P6, I reckon the authorities could have taken a little more effort to ensure service of notice, for it has at its disposal the petitioner's alternative address, too. Indeed, the Government Pleader with access to the records could inform the Court that the petitioner perhaps has tak
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
and issued the Ext.P5 penalty proceedings. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. The petitioner's counsel submits that the Ext.P5 order suffers from the vice of violating the principles of natural justice. According to him, no notice was served on the petitioner. First he has drawn my attention to the Intelligence Officer's observations in Ext.P5 about serving a notice. Later, he has drawn my attention to Ext.P2 to contend that the Department itself, in that notice under Section 47 of the Act, has incorporated both the addresses of the petitioner. To elaborate, the petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner had its head office at Irinjalakkuda, and its branch at Kalamassery. Later, the petitioner has shifted its head office also to Kalamassery. In this context, the petitioner's counsel argues that once the officials had the notice returned with the postal endorsement that the establishment was closed, they ought to have served the notices on
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
provision of Law. But the above notice was returned by the postal authorities undelivered noting 'closed'. 8. As seen from Ext.P1, the petitioner was shown as both the consignor and the consignee. As a consignor, the notice recorded one address and for the consignee another address. Given the penal consequence that flow from Ext.P6, I reckon the authorities could have taken a little more effort to ensure service of notice, for it has at its disposal the petitioner's alternative address, too. Indeed, the Government Pleader with access to the records could inform the Court that the petitioner perhaps has taken undue advantage of the system. That is, he has prevailed upon the postman to return the notice. First, none including this Court could know about that machination, if true, the petitioner has adopted. Second, nothing prevented the assessing authority to record that reason in Ext.P6 and then reckon it as a deemed service. Further, at variance from Ext.P6, the Department
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =