The High Court of Kerala dismissed the writ appeal against the Single Judge’s order rejecting a challenge to ex parte tax assessment proceedings. The court held the appellant’s plea regarding non-disclosure of invoice details was a delayed tactic and not entertained as the statutory remedy of appeal was available.
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 ANTONY DOMINIC
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2017/13TH ASHADHA, 1939
WA.No. 1372 of 2017 IN WP(C).8826/2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 8826/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 22-03-2017
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
MOHAMMED ABDUL RAHIMAN
M/S. K.M.A AGENCIES, KAIPPURAM, PATTAMBI - 679 304.
BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON
SMT.MEERA V.MENON
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC, J. & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No.1372 of 2017
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of July, 2017
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic, J.
This appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.(C)No.8826/17. The appellant filed the writ petition aggrieved by Ext.P6 series assessment orders for the months of July to October 2016. The ground on which the assessment orders were challenged was that the assessment was completed in violation of the principles of natural justice in as much as the details of the invoices relied on against the appellant were not disclosed. Learned Judge declined to accept the contention and dismissed the writ petition. It is accordingly the appeal is filed.
W.A.No.1372 of 2017
: 2 :
completed ex parte, the appellant had approached this court challenging that ex parte orders and that writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P2 directing with a denovo assessment. If at all the appellant considered the details of the invoices, essential to contest the dispute, he could have raised that plea on that occasion. That was not done. Instead the appellant has chosen to raise this plea only after the assessments were completed. It is accordingly this writ petition was filed raising the plea of violation of principles on the ground that the details of the invoices were not disclosed, in our view, this belated attempt is only a delay tactics adopted by the appellant. Irrespective of all this, the appellant has a statutory remedy of appeal as well.
We are not inclined to interfere with the judgment under appeal. Appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly.
sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE
sd/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE
jes
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to interfere with the Single Judge's dismissal of the writ petition raising violation of principles of natural justice in tax assessment proceedings?
Whether the appellant's claim of non-disclosure of invoice details constitutes a valid ground for challenging the completed ex parte assessment orders in the present writ appeal?
Whether the existing statutory remedy of appeal precluded the court from entertaining the present writ appeal regarding delay in raising the plea of natural justice?
MOHAMMED ABDUL RAHIMAN
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER PATTAMBI
THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES
ANTONY DOMINIC
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
