Quashed

Premalatha R v. the Commiercial Tax Officer (Wc)

Kerala HC22 Jan 2016WP(C)/2598/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged assessment orders under the KVAT Act that confirmed demands on issues not raised in pre-assessment notices. The court held that the orders violated natural justice. It quashed them and directed reassessment based solely on the notice proposals.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned orders Ext.P3 and P3(a). Directed the respondent to complete assessments based on proposals in the pre-assessment notices after hearing the petitioner.

Premalatha R Vs the Commiercial Tax Officer (Wc) — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2016/2ND MAGHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 2598 of 2016 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

PREMALATHA. R., M/S.CLASSIC BUILDERS, 20/63, MANKAVU, BEHIND GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, PALAKKAD-678 001.

¶8

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

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WC), PALAKKAD-678 001.

¶11

2. STATE OF KERALA,

¶12

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.LILLY K.T.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

rs.

¶16

WP(C).No. 2598 of 2016 (Y)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶19

EXT.P1-	COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23.07.2015.
EXT.P1(A)-	COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23.07.2015.
EXT.P2-	COPY OF REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 13.08.2015.
EXT.P2(A)-	COPY OF REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 17.08.2015.
EXT.P3-	COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 06.11.2015.
EXT.P3(A)-	COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 06.11.2015.
EXT.P4-	COPY OF BALANCE SHEET OF THE PETITIONER DATED 31.03.2012.
EXT.P4(A)-	COPY OF BALANCE SHEET OF THE PETITIONER DATED 31.03.2013.

¶20

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶25

W.P.(C). No. 2598 of 2016

¶26

Dated this the 22^nd day of January, 2016

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The challenge in the writ petition is against Exts.P3 and P3(a) orders passed in relation to the petitioner under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as the KVAT Act, for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is essentially that, although he was served with pre-assessment notices, which contained a particular proposal, and he had filed a detailed replies to the said pre-assessment notices, in Ext.P3 and P3(a) orders that were passed in adjudication proceedings, the 1^st respondent has confirmed a demand on the petitioner on issues that were not put to the petitioner in the pre-assessment notices. It is therefore contended that the impugned orders are vitiated by a patent noncompliance with the rules of natural justice.

¶29

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

¶30

-2-

¶31

W.P.(C). No. 2598 of 2016

¶32

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I find from Exts.P3 and P3(a) orders that the assessments in relation to the petitioner have been completed by making additions, the basis of which was not put to the petitioner in the pre-assessment notices. The said orders are therefore, vitiated by a patent non-compliance with the rules of natural justice. I therefore, quash Exts.P3 and P3 (a) orders and direct the 1^st respondent to complete the assessments in relation to the petitioner for the assessment years in question, based on the proposals mentioned in the preassessment notices issued to the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner. I make it clear that, if the respondent proposes to incorporate any additional proposals, then the petitioner shall be put to notice of the said proposals before completing the assessment in relation to the petitioner on the said proposals.

¶33

The writ petition is disposed as above.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶36

das /22.01.2016

Premalatha R v. the Commiercial Tax Officer (Wc)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premalatha R v. the Commiercial Tax Officer (Wc)

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

Unnikrishnan Nair v. Vs Trivandrum Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

M/S. Rainbow Traders Vs the Commercial Tax Officer, Kunnamkulam

Dasan T.D Vs the Authorised Officer

Shammas Jamsheer M.C. Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

M/S.Kalyan Jewellers India Pvt.Ltd. Vs the Intelligence Inspector

M.P.Poulose Vs State of Kerala