FATHIMA FASHION JEWELLERY MUNFEEDS TC GATE P.O. NARETHM KANNUR REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MUHAMMED MOOLAYIL Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, 1ST CIRCLE, KANNUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to quash Ext.P5 series of notices, that were issued to the petitioner for production of accounts, documents, registers etc. The facts in the writ petition would indicate that for the assessment years 2007-2008 to 2011-2012 the assessments of the petitioner to tax under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act was completed by the 1st respondent by Ext.P1 series of assessment orders. The petitioner challenged the said assessment orders before the first appellate authority, who modified the assessments by reducing the addition of 5% made by the assessing authority to 1%. The petitioner as also the State Government filed appeals against the order of the first appellate authority before the appellate tribunal. The appellate tribunal, by Ext.P3 order, allowed the appeals filed by the State and restored the addition of 5% made in the assessments by the 1st respondent. As regards the appeals filed by the petitioner, the claim of the petitioner for special rebate was allowed and the matter was remanded to the assessing authority for the purposes of computing the special rebate available to the petitioner and granting the same, while modifying the assessment orders accordingly. In the writ petition, the petitioner impugns Ext.P5 series of notices that were served on him by the assessing authority in purported compliance with the directions in Ext.P3 order of the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, inasmuch as in Ext.P3 order of the Tribunal, there was a clear direction to allow the special rebate, to which the petitioner is entitled, based on the addition of purchase turnover, that was made in his case, there was no necessity for any further investigation with regard to the extent of special rebate that was to be allowed to the petitioner, as the amount could be gathered from the assessment orders, that were impugned in the appeals that were remanded by the appellate tribunal.

(2.) A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein reference is made to an audited statement, that was subsequently filed on behalf of the petitioner, and there is a reference made to certain discrepancies in the figures between those furnished in the annual return and those found in the audited statement. It is the case of the respondents that, although the appellate tribunal had remanded the matter for granting the benefit of special rebate to the petitioner, the filing of the audited statement had indicated that, there was a difference in the figures that could be claimed by way of special rebate by the petitioner.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.