Quashed

P.Radhakrishnan Nair v. the Commercial Tax Officer, Thiruvananthapuram

Kerala HC1 Feb 2016WP(C)/173/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed an assessment order under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act for AY 2010-11. The court held that the pre-assessment notice was served on an unauthorized person, violating natural justice, and directed the respondent to complete the assessment afresh after hearing the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Quashed Ext.P3 order; directed respondent to complete assessment afresh after hearing petitioner; directed petitioner to appear for assessment on 16.02.2016.

P.Radhakrishnan Nair Vs the Commercial… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/12TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 173 of 2016 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

P.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, PROPRIETOR, M/S.KARTHIKA ENTERPRISES, TRWA 217, THALIYIL, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 002.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 2ND CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 002.

¶11

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.R.RENJITH

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

Msd.

¶14

WP(C).No. 173 of 2016 (V)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶17

EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 09.11.2010.

¶18

EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF ANNUAL RETURN FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 DATED 30.09.2011.

¶19

EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 23.12.2015.

¶20

EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF RETURN FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE MONTH OF JAN 2011 DATED 27.02.2011.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ............................................................. W.P.(C).No.173 Of 2016

¶27

............................................................. Dated this the 1^st day of February, 2016

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P3 assessment order passed in relation to the petitioner under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act for the assessment year 2010-2011. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is essentially that, the petitioner was not served with the pre-assessment notice before passing Ext.P3 order. It is therefore the submission of counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P3 order is vitiated through a non-compliance with the rules of natural justice. When the matter came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that the pre-assessment notice was served on one Renjini A.R., who was stated to be the person in charge of the business of the firm, and the said person had acknowledged the receipt of the assessment notice. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently disputes the said fact and submits that there is no one by the name of Smt.Renjini.A.R working in the petitioner's firm, who is authorised to receive any notice on his behalf. In a

¶30

W.P.(C). No.173 of 2016

¶31

-2-

¶32

reply affidavit filed to the memo filed by the learned Government Pleader, the petitioner has produced as Ext.P5, a confirmation letter from Smt. A.R.Renjini, who works with an establishment called Karthika constructions, which bears a similarity to the name of the petitioner's firm, stating that she had received the notice inadvertently and by mistake thinking that it was a notice intended for the firm for which she was working. Taking note of the contents of the said letter, it is apparent that the pre-assessment notice was served on a wrong person and not to an authorised representative of the petitioner. I therefore quash Ext.P3 order and direct the respondent to complete the assessment in relation to the petitioner for the assessment year 2010-2011 afresh after hearing the petitioner. To enable the respondent to do so, I direct the petitioner to appear before the 1^st respondent at his office at 11 am on 16.02.2016. The 1^st respondent shall pass orders as directed within a month thereafter.

¶33

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶34

mns/1.02.16

P.Radhakrishnan Nair v. the Commercial Tax Officer, Thiruvananthapuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Radhakrishnan Nair v. the Commercial Tax Officer, Thiruvananthapuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Zaurabi Vs the Kasaragod District

K.T.Binu Vs the Authorised Officer

Lalil L. Vs the Authorised Officer

Sugathan Vs the District Collector

Ahmed Thasriq Malkeri Vs State Bank of India, Rep. by Its Authorised Officer

M/S. Aiswarya Traders Vs the Assisiatnt Commissioner