← Library
High Court of KeralaWP(C)/39342/2015disposed of

Rinto.N.R v. The Commercial Tax Officer(Works Contract)

2015-12-23Honourable Dr. Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/2ND POUSHA, 1937 WP(C).No. 39342 of 2015 (P) ---------------------------- PETITIONER :

---------------------- RINTO N.R., ALU GLAZE CLADDING AND GLAZING NJERINJAMPILLY HOUSE VELLARAMPADAM, MUPLIYAM THRISSUR - 680 312.

BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S) :

---------------------------- 1.

THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WORKS CONTRACT) OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR - 680 004.

2.

THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES TAX TOWER, KARAMANA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 002.

R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. LILLY K.T.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Mn ...2/-

WP(C).No. 39342 of 2015 (P) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

EXT.P1 : COPY OF ORDER NO. C3/23011/13/CT OF THE AUTHORITY FOR CLARIFICATION DATED 27.11.2013.

EXT.P2 COPY OF ORDER NO. 32081689653/09-10 OF THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 28.10.2015.

EXT.P3 COPY OF ORDER NO. 32081689653/10-11 OF THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 28.10.2015.

EXT.P4 COPY OF ORDER NO. 32081689653/11-12 OF THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 28.10.2015.

EXT.P5 COPY OF ORDER NO. 32081689653/12-13 OF THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 28.10.2015.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.39342 of 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of December 2015

JUDGMENT

The challenge in the writ petition is against Exts.P2 to P5 orders of assessment, passed in relation to the petitioner under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2012-13. The grievance of the petitioner against Exts.P2 to P5 assessment orders is essentially that the said orders were passed without hearing the petitioner, and without noticing that the issue involved was covered in favour of the petitioner by subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court.

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

3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I find that in Exts.P2 to P5 orders, there is no reference to any of hearing, that was afforded to the petitioner prior to the passing of the said orders. I find force in the contention of the petitioner that if he was given an opportunity of hearing, he could have brought to the

W.P.(c).No.39342 of 2015 : 2 :

notice of the 1st respondent the subsequent decisions rendered by the Supreme Court which, according to the petitioner, would have settled the issue in his favour. I, therefore, quash Exts.P2 to P5 orders and direct the 1st respondent to pass fresh order in the matter, after hearing the petitioner and considering the decisions relied upon by the petitioner to substantiate his contention on merits. To enable the 1st respondent to do so, I direct the petitioner to appear before the 1st respondent at his office at 11 a.m. on 06.01.2016. The 1st respondent shall pass fresh orders as directed, within a period of one month thereafter. I make it clear that it is open to the petitioner to raise all issues, including the issue of jurisdiction, before the 1st respondent, at the time of hearing.

The writ petition is disposed as above.

Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE sm/