ELDOSE KURIAKOSE v. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The writ petition is disposed of as above
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Under the above circumstances Ext.P5 order is herebyquashed. Petitioner is directed to appear for a personal hearingbefore the respondent on 30.12.2009. After affording anopportunity of hearing and after adverting to contentions raised W.P.(C).35780/09-N3by the petitioner in Ext.P4, the respondent shall issue freshorders thereafter, as…
Judgment
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------W.P.(C).No.35780 OF 2009 ------------------------------Dated this the 11th day of December, 2009J U D G M E N T----------------------1.Ext.P5 order of assessment is challenged in this writpetition without resorting to statutory remedy of appeal, on thepremise that there is total violation of natural justice, to theextent the petitioner was not afforded with sufficient opportunityto object the pre-assessment notice.
Ext.P3 is the notice issued under Section 25 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) intimatingproposal for assessment and calling for objections. Ext.P3 isdated 2.11.2009. In the impugned order it is admitted that thenotice was served on the petitioner only on 12.11.2009. It isnoticed that in Ext.P3 the petitioner was required to appearalong with books of account on 12.11.2009 at 11 a.m. It is statedthat the notice was received only in the afternoon of 12.11.2009.However, the petitioner had submitted detailed objections to theproposal for assessment, as evidenced from Ext.P4. It is furtherevident from the postal acknowledgement card produced alongwith Ext.P4, that the objections were received by the respondentonly on 5.12.2009. It is noticed that the impugned assessment W.P.(C).35780/09-N2order was issued on 26.11.2009, admittedly before receipt of theobjections.
It is submitted by the petitioner that he has gotserious objections against the assessment, because the contractundertaken by the petitioner is not with respect to sale of anygoods, but it is only a works contract. From the circumstancesstated above, it is clear that at the time when assessment orderis issued, the objections were not available before therespondent. Eventhough learned Government Pleader appearingon behalf of the respondent contended that the petitioner couldhave approached the authority with the objections within areasonable time after receipt of notice, I find that the impugnedorder is passed within few days of receipt of the notice by thepetitioner. At any rate, it is clear that the petitioner wasdeprived of proper opportunity to raise his contentions againstthe assessment. Hence in the interest of justice I am of theopinion that the mater need re-consideration at the hands of therespondent.
Operative part
Under the above circumstances Ext.P5 order is herebyquashed. Petitioner is directed to appear for a personal hearingbefore the respondent on 30.12.2009. After affording anopportunity of hearing and after adverting to contentions raised W.P.(C).35780/09-N3by the petitioner in Ext.P4, the respondent shall issue freshorders thereafter, as early as possible, at any rate within aperiod of one month from the date of hearing of the matter. The writ petition is disposed of as above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.okb
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition is disposed of as above
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
theKerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 — s. 25.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 11 Dec 2009. The bench was C K ABDUL REHIM.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.