The High Court set aside an ex-parte assessment order issued under the KVAT Act, directing the assessing authority to hear the petitioner before passing a fresh decision after verifying accounts.
Ex-parte assessment order (Ext. P7) set aside; petitioner directed to appear for hearing on 5.12.2016.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/27TH KARTHIKA, 1938
WP(C).No. 25883 of 2016 (I)
PETITIONER:
T.C. JOHN, PROPRIETOR, M/S.NEW FASHION JEWELLERY, NADAKKAVU, UDAYAMPEROOR P.O., THRIPUNITHURA-682 307, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.TOMSON T.EMMANUEL
RESPONDENT(S):
1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, 1ST CIRCLE, THRIPUNITHURA -682 301.
2. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, SQUAD NO.III, SALES TAX COMPLEX, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682 015.
R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
WP(C).No. 25883 of 2016 (I)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
| EXHIBIT P1 : COPY OF SHOP INSPECTION REPORT NO.238968 DT. 22/9/15 CONDUCTED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. |
|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 : COPY OF PROCEEDING DT 19/11/15 PASSED U/S.74 OF THE KVAT ACT, ISSUED TO PETITIONER, BY 2ND RESPONDENT, WHILE FINALIZING ENQUIRY IN EXT. P1 INSPECTION. |
| EXHIBIT P3 : COPY OF E-RETURN DT. DT. 20/1/16 FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER 2015, SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC.22(10) DECLARING SUPPRESSION DETECTED IN EXT. P2 COMPOUNDING. |
| EXHIBIT P4 : COPY OF ANNUAL E-RETURN DT. 18/6/16 FOR 2015-16 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER. |
| EXHIBIT P5 : COPY OF NOTICE U/S. 25(1) FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY 1ST RESPONDENT, BASED ON EXT.P2 COMPOUNDING PROCEEDINGS, WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE AS TO ANY DETECTION OF PATTERN OF SUPPRESSION. |
| EXHIBIT P6 : COPY OF REPLY DT 7/6/16 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT, PURSUANT TO EX.P5 NOTICE. |
| EXHIBITP6(A): COPY OF REPLY DT 18/6/16 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT, IN CONTINUATION TO EX.P6 SEEKING FOR A PERSONAL HEARING. |
| EXHIBIT P7 : COPY OF ORDER DT. 25/6/16 FOR THE YEAR 2015-16, COMMUNICATED TO PETITIONER ON 28/7/16, ISSUED WITHOUT CONSIDERING EXT.P6(A) AND WITHOUT A PERSONAL HEARING. |
| EXHIBIT P7(A): COPY OF POSTAL COVER EVIDENCING DISPATCH OF EXT.P7 ON 27/7/16, BY 1ST RESPONDENT. |
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
mbr/
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
W.P.(C) No.25883 of 2016
Dated this the 18th day of November, 2016
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P7 assessment order by which an ex-parte order of assessment has been passed by the first respondent. Petitioner had raised substantial contentions in the matter. But, it is submitted that notice dated 25.5.2016 was served on the petitioner only on 9.6.2016. The date of hearing was posted on 7.6.2016. Petitioner however submitted Exts.P6 and P6 (a) on 7.6.2016 and 18.6.2016. But without considering the same, an order was passed on 25.6.2016. Petitioner submits that he is a dealer, who had made an online application for registration on 15.09.2015 under the KVAT Act. However, an inspection was conducted by the Department on 22.9.2015 and certain suppressions were taken note of. The petitioner had compounded the same under Section 74 of the KVAT Act, 2003 and revised return was also filed under Section 22(10) of the
W.P.(C) No.25883 of 2016
-2-
Act. Thereafter, a notice had been issued under Section 25 (1). Petitioner submits that the assessing authority while passing the impugned order, had not taken note of the actual state of affairs and had even failed to provide the input tax credit to the petitioner.
heard in the matter, especially, when there was a specific request in that regard and that the notice was served only after the date fixed for hearing, it is appropriate that the petitioner should be given an opportunity for hearing.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as under:
(i) Ext.P7 is set aside.
(ii) Petitioner shall appear before the assessing
authority on 5.12.2016 and after hearing the petitioner, the assessing authority, after verifying the books of account and other documents, shall pass appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible.
A.M. SHAFFIQUE
JUDGE
Scl/18.11.2016
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the ex-parte assessment order should be set aside due to violation of natural justice and lack of hearing.
Whether the petitioner was given a proper opportunity to be heard before the assessment order was passed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
T.C. JOHN
COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER
INTELLIGENCE OFFICER
A.M. SHAFFIQUE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
