High Court of KeralaWP(C)/2268/2015disposed of

Shafi P. v. The Assistant Commissiner

2015-01-22Honourable Dr. Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2015/2ND MAGHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 2268 of 2015 (G) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

---------------- SHAFI P.

PULIKKAL TRADERS, KADAMPUZHA, MALAPPURAM.

BY ADVS.SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.V.K.SHAMUSUDHEEN RESPONDENT(S):

--------------- THE ASSISTANT COMMISSINER (KVAT) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE MALAPPURAM - 673 006.

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SOBHA ANNAMMA EAPPEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 2268 of 2015 (G) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------ EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF THE PRE-ASSESSMENT NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 DATED 12.11.2014 EXT.P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 15.12.2014 EXT.P-3: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011 - 12 DATED 5.1.2015 EXT.P-4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC NO.31051 OF 2014 DATED 21.11.2014 EXT.P-5: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE IN FORM NO.12 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011 - 12 DATED 8.1.2015 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS;NIL --------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

........................................................ ......................................................... Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 assessment order under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act for the assessment year 2011-2012. The principal ground of challenge against Ext.P3 order is that, although the petitioner was given an opportunity to file a reply to the notice that preceded the order, the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing after the filing of the reply and Ext.P3 order, in that respect, was passed without hearing the petitioner.

2. I have heard Sri.N.Muraleedharan Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Sobha Annamma Eappen, the learned Government Pleader for respondents.

3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I find that in Ext.P2 reply to Ext.P1 notice that was served on the petitioner, the petitioner had indicated that if the explanations given in the reply were not acceptable to the respondent, or if the respondent required any further evidence or clarification, then he should be

given an opportunity to substantiate his contentions before passing orders in the case. In Ext.P3 order, there is nothing to indicate that a hearing was afforded to the petitioner pursuant to the said request contained in Ext.P2 reply. In that view of the matter, I find that Ext.P3 order has been passed in violation of the rules of natural justice. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P3 and direct the respondent to reconsider the matter, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. To enable the respondent to do this, I direct the petitioner to appear before the respondent at his office at 11 am on 06.02.2015. The respondent shall pass fresh orders as directed in this judgment within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns/