The Kerala High Court closed a writ petition challenging an assesment notice under the K.V.A.T. Act, 2003. Accepting the respondent's admission of an oversight in issuing the notice, the Court held no relief was necessary.
The writ petition stands closed by accepting the statement in the counter affidavit; no relief granted.
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 S.V.BHATTI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 28TH ASWINA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 10542 OF 2017
PETITIONER/S:
M/S.BLASTLINE INDIA, BLASTLINE INDIA, 48/34 A-4, L.F.PLAZA, KALOOR PERANDOOR ROAD, ELAMAKKARA PO., KOCHI-682026, REP. BY ITS PARTNER JOSEKUTTY ANTONY
BY ADVS. SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN; SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN
RESPONDENT/S:
BY SPL GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR MOHAMMED RAFIQ
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.10542/2017
-2-
J U D G M E N T
S.V. Bhatti, J.
The writ petition is filed for the following reliefs:
“(i). Call for the records leading to Ext.P1 and issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing Ext.P1; AND
(iii). Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
2. The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 notice dated
04.03.2017.
instant petition filed a counter affidavit and paragraph nos. 3 to
5 read thus:
“3. It is submitted that the petitioner is an assessee borne on the rolls of the second respondent's office. Consequent on receipt of an enquiry file (OR file) from Intelligence Wing, a
W.P.(C) No.10542/2017
-3-
notice under Section 25(1) of KVAT Act-2003 was issued to the petitioner on 04-03-2017 in order to complete the assessment for the year 2010-11. According to the insertion of sub section (3) (iv) of Section 42 of KVAT Act, 2003, the time limit mentioned under Section 25 shall not applicable in a case since there was an enquiry file in respect of the petitioner. In the instant case, the assessing authority has received an Enquiry File (OR file) from the Intelligence Department and the assessment is to be treated as pending which is coming under the purview of Section 42 (3) (iv) of the K.V.A.T. Act. Therefore Exhibit P-1 notice has been issued to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the OR file received by the assessing authority is actually relating to the assessment year 2009-10 and not related to the assessment 2010-11. Exhibit P-1 notice was issued to the petitioner due to an over sight and mistake. The petitioner has not so far pointed out the said mistake before the assessing authority. In the circumstances, solely for the said reason, further action based on the Exhibit P1 notice dated 04-03-2017 is already dropped.
W.P.(C) No.10542/2017
-4-
For emphasis, we also note the categorical assertion of the deponent that in the stated circumstances no relief is necessary, i.e ., granted.
Sd/S.V.BHATTI JUDGE
Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI JUDGE
jjj
W.P.(C) No.10542/2017
-5-
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10542/2017
PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 4.3.2017 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the assessment notice requires adjudication given that the assessing authority has dropped the proceedings due to an oversight.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief when the respondents admit the mistake and withdraw the action in their counter affidavit.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s. Blastline India
The State of Kerala
The Asst. Commissioner Assessment Special Circle-1
S.V. Bhatti
Basant Balaji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
