Appeal against Single Bench judgment dismissing writ petition challenging assessment order. Court held non-consideration of objections and lack of personal hearing vitiated order. Appeal allowed; assessment quashed; fresh order after hearing directed.
Impugned assessment order quashed; fresh orders after personal hearing directed.
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 C.K.ABDUL REHIM &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI
WEDNESDAY,THE 06TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 /15TH PHALGUNA, 1940
WA.No. 741 of 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 2638/2019 of HIGH COURT
APPELLANT/WRIT PETITIONER:
M/S. C P BAWA TIMBERS AND SAW MILL, 1ST FLOOR, POOKUZHI BUILDING, NELLIKUZHI P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MG.PARTNER C.B.PAREETH.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.S.SOMAN SMT.T.RADHAMANY
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE TAX OFFICER, SGST DEPARTMENT, REVENUE TOWER, KOTHAMANGLAAM PIN-686666.
2 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. V K SHAMSUDEEN SR GP
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.741/2019
-:2:-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM & R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, JJ.
----------------------------------------------------Writ Appeal No. 741 OF 2019
-------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of March, 2019
J U D G M E N T
Abdul Rehim, J.
An assessment completed under Section 25 of the KVAT
Act, 2003 was under challenge at the instance of the appellant before the Single Bench in W.P.(C) No.2638/2019, mainly on the ground that objections raised against the pre-assessment
notice was not adverted to in a proper manner and the assessing authority had failed to give any reasoning for discarding the contentions raised in the objections.
the assessing authority had not considered the objections in its
W.A. No.741/2019
-:3:-
proper perspective, the same is an aspect of adjudication or lack of adjudication on merits and that it will not amount to violation of the principles of natural justice. It was found that, since the petitioner has got an effective alternate remedy by way of appeal. The petitioner was permitted to seek the appellate remedy available, with an observation made to the effect that the time spent in prosecuting the writ petition shall be exempted from the period of limitation. Aggrieved by the judgment in the writ petition, the above appeal is filed.
W.A. No.741/2019
-:4:-
order does not reflect any advertence made or consideration of the merits of those objections. Nothing is stated in reply to those objections. In other words, the order does not reflect any application of mind of the assessing authority towards those objections. On the other hand, what is stated in the assessment order is, “ I have carefully gone through the reply filed by the dealer and found that there is no valid ground in the
reply and not produced any material evidence in this regard” . Such a blunt and stock observation/statement cannot be treated
as a substitute for an actual consideration of the merits of the objections. Since the process of assessment is an exercise which is quasi-judicial in nature the application of mind to the consideration of the objections should reflect in the order, which is lacking in the case at hand.
consideration of the objections will definitely vitiate the order of assessment. It is not a case as if the assessee had failed to
W.A. No.741/2019
-:5:-
submit any objections. When the assessment authority had accepted the objections and reproduced the contentions thereof, it is obligatory on the part of the authority to consider those objections on merits and to state sufficient reasons for repelling those contentions. It is not a question of violating principles of natural justice; but it is a question which go deep into the sustainability of the assessment itself.
W.A. No.741/2019
-:6:-
before finalizing the assessment.
filed on a subsequent date, which is evident from the assessment order itself, it contemplates an obligation on the part of the assessing authority to have afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee, especially when the
W.A. No.741/2019
-:7:-
appellant had made a specific request in Ext.P2 objections for affording an opportunity for personal hearing.
observing that there exists an efficacious alternate remedy by way of appeal. But we are of the opinion that, even if such a remedy is invoked by the appellant, the appellate authority will not be in a position to confirm the order of assessment, because of the infirmities pointed out as above. In case the appellate authority is going to consider the merits of the objections raised by the assessee for the first time and arriving at conclusions on the same, that will result in denying an appellate remedy, at least in one stage, to the assessee.
above writ appeal is hereby allowed. The judgment in W.P.(C) No.2638/2019, dated 12th February, 2019 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed and Ext.P5 order of assessment is hereby quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to pass fresh orders of
W.A. No.741/2019
-:8:-
assessment based on the objections already submitted by the appellant, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to him. For expediting finalization of the assessment, the appellant is directed to appear before the 1st respondent for the purpose of personal hearing, through himself or through authorized agent, at 11 a.m. on 18.03.2019. The 1st respondent shall conduct the hearing on the said date itself or on any other date to which the matter is adjourned. Fresh assessment order shall be issued on the basis of such hearing, at the earliest, at any rate, within two weeks from 18.03.2019.
Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE .
Sd/- R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE .
ul/-
[True copy] P.S. to Judge.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether failure of assessing authority to provide reasoned application of mind to objections vitiates the assessment order.
Whether lack of personal hearing opportunity despite request by assessee warrants quashing of assessment.
Whether writ appeal against dismissal of writ petition regarding assessment infirmities should be allowed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Johnson & Johnson Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment)Applied¶46
Johnson & Johnson Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment)[2011 (2) KHC 506]
The Commercial Tax Officer and others v. C.U. MathaiRelied on¶50
The Commercial Tax Officer and others v. C.U. Mathai
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/S. C P BAWA TIMBERS AND SAW MILL
STATE TAX OFFICER, SGST DEPARTMENT
COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
C.K. ABDUL REHIM
R. NARAYANA PISHARADI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
