Quashed

World Wide Iron and Steels (P) Ltd. v. the Assistant Commissioner

Kerala HC1 Apr 2016WP(C)/9428/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging assessment order under KVAT Act for AY 2012-13 due to alleged lack of personal hearing. Court found hearing was posted despite petitioner's request. Writ allowed to quash order and direct fresh assessment after hearing.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P3 order quashed; petitioner to appear on 08.04.2016; respondent to pass fresh orders within one month.

World Wide Iron and Steels (P) Ltd. Vs the Assistant… — GST and Indirect Tax | 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 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2016/12TH CHAITHRA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 9428 of 2016 (C)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

WORLD WIDE IRON AND STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED, WISE PARK,PETRONET ROAD,8/862,KANJIKODE,PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,SRI.ABDUL AZEEZ.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, SRI.V.K.SHAMUSUDHEEN

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER(ASSESSMENT), SPECIAL CIRCLE,COMMERCIAL TAXES,PALAKKAD-678 001.

¶11

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LILLY K.T.

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-04-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

Prv.

¶14

WP(C).No.9428 of 2016 (C)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶17

EXT.P1:	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S.25(1) OF THE KVAT ACT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 DATED 28.10.2015
EXT.P2:	TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 DATED 11.11.2015
EXT.P3:	TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 DATED 30.11.2015
EXT.P4:	TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE IN FORM NO.12 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 DATED 30.11.2015.
RESPONDEN	TS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶22

¶23

W.P.(C) No.9428 of 2016

¶24

¶25

Dated this the 1^st day of April 2016

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P3 order of assessment passed in relation to the petitioner under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, for the assessment year 2012-13. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition against Ext.P3 order is essentially that, before passing the said order, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing before the respondent. It is the contention of the petitioner therefore that Ext.P3 order is vitiated by a non-compliance with the rules of natural justice.

¶28

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

¶29

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I find from Ext.P3 order that while the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to file his objections and the petitioner did file his objections on 11.11.2015, it is stated that the personal hearing was also posted on 11.11.2015. The learned counsel for the petitioner would

¶30

W.P.(c).No.9428 of 2016

¶31

: 2 :

¶32

submit that while he had submitted his objections on 11.11.2015, there was no personal hearing on the said date, despite the fact that the petitioner had requested for the same. Taking note of the said submission the counsel for the petitioner and finding that no prejudice will be caused to the respondent by affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, I quash Ext.P3 order and direct the respondent to pass fresh orders of assessment in relation to the petitioner, for the assessment year in question, after hearing the petitioner. To enable the respondent to do so, I direct the petitioner to appear before the respondent at his office at 11 a.m. on 08.04.2016. The respondent shall pass fresh orders as directed within a period of one month thereafter.

¶33

The writ petition is disposed as above.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶36

sm/

World Wide Iron and Steels (P) Ltd. v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

World Wide Iron and Steels (P) Ltd. v. the Assistant Commissioner

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

State Bank of India Vs M/S.Kinship Services(India)Pvt.Ltd.

Anwar E. Vs Canara Bank, Sme Branch, Kullappully

Ansu Joseph Vs Federal Bank

C. Yousaph, Proprietor, Nanminda Wood Industries Vs State of Kerala

V.D.Joseph Vs the Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Sreedevi Amma Vs Authorised Officer