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
VAT and Sales Tax
2018 (12) TMI 486 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 30-11-2018
WP(C). No. 37663 of 2018
CST, VAT & Sales Tax
MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
For The Petitioner : ADV. SRI. C. R. SIVAKUMAR
For The Respondent : DR THUSHARA JAMES, GP
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, a partnership firm, is a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act; it deals in furniture. In August 2015 it had
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
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 the second address.
4. The Government Pleader, in response, submits that the petitioner in fact received the notice, went through the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
accounts and other documentary evidence on 19.12.2016 to prove that the transport of the goods was in accordance with the 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
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =