M/S ALLEPPEY HOTEL PRINCE V. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & COMMERCIAL

WP(C)/8222/2011

AI Insights

The case involves M/S. Alleppey Prince Hotel, which contested the revised assessment orders and subsequent rectification orders issued by the Agricultural Income Tax & Commercial Tax Officer, Allappuzha. The petitioner argued that the rectification applications for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2010-11 were rejected without a personal hearing, violating the principles of natural justice. The petitioner sought various writs to set aside the assessment and rectification orders and to direct a recomputation of tax based on specific criteria. The court found that the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to present their case, leading to the quashing of the rectification orders and a directive for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755998 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-08-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Agricultural Income Tax & Commercial Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: BIJOY CHANDRAN
• Assessee Lawyers: A KUMAR
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Natural Justice; Rectification Application; Turnover Tax
• Section: 23(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2011 / 14TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 8222 of 2011(C) ---------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- M/S. ALLEPPEY PRINCE HOTEL, A.S.ROAD, N.H. 47, ALLEPPEY-688007. REPRESENTED BY VINOD KUMAR B, GENERAL MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR RESPONDENT : ---------------------- THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ALLAPPUZHA-688001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 8222 of 2011(C) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 7.2.2011. EXT.P1(a) : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 7.2.2011. EXT.P2 : COPY OF REPLY DATED 23.2.2011. EXT.P2(a) : COPY OF STATEMENT. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE REVISED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23.2.2011. EXT.P3(a) : COPY OF THE DEMAND FOR INTEREST U/S 23(3). EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION DATED NIL. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.03.2011. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 23.2.2011. EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE REVISED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23.2.2011. EXT.P7(a) : COPY OF THE DEMAND FOR INTEREST U/S 23(3) DTD 23.2.2011. EXT.P8 : COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION DATED NIL. EXT.P9 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.03.2011. EXT.P10 : COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 23.2.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. EXT.P11 : COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 23.2.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. EXT.P12 : COPY OF THE REVISED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23.2.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. EXT.P12(a) : COPY OF THE DEMAND FOR INTEREST U/S 23(3) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 DTD. 23.2.2011. (Contd...) WP(C).No. 8222 of 2011(C) EXT.P13 : COPY OF THE REVISED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23.2.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. EXT.P13(a) : COPY OF THE DEMAND FOR INTEREST U/S 23(3) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 DTD. 23.2.2011. EXT.P14 : COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 DATED NIL. EXT.P15 : COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 DATED NIL. EXT.P16 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.03.2011. EXT.P17 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.03.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.8222 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an assessee liable to pay turnover tax. The original assessment made was sought to be revised and revised assessment orders were passed. The petitioner filed applications for rectification of the assessment orders. The same were rejected. The petitioner's grievance is that, the applications were rejected without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The petitioner therefore seek the following reliefs: “to call for the records relating to Exts. P3, P7, P12 and P13 assessment orders and Exhibits P5, P9, P16 and P17 rectification orders passed by the respondent and; I. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction setting aside Exhibit P3, P7, P12 and P13 assessment orders and also Exhibit P5, P9, P16 and P17 orders in rectification application passed by the respondent for the assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 and direct the respondent to re- compute the tax in accordance with law. II. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction directing the respondent o recomputed the tax payable for the assessment year 2007-08 on the basis of section 7 (a) on the purchase value for the relevant year without adding the opening stock. W.P.(C)No.8222 of 2011 -2- III. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to recompute the tax for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 by adopting the tax payable as 115% of the turnover tax conceded in the return or accounts or tax paid alone and not on the basis of turnover as per accounts. Or in the alternative to (relief II and III) above IV. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction directing the respondent to reconsider the rectification application for the year 2007-08 to 2010-11 after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. V. issue a writ of prohibition or any other writ, order or direction restraining the respondent from recovering the amounts covered under Exhibits P3, P7, P12 and P13 assessment orders through revenue recovery or in any other manner known to law.” This court directed the Government Pleader to ascertain whether the petitioner was heard before passing orders on the rectification petitions. Today, the learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of personal hearing. That amounts to violation of principles of natural justices. In the above circumstances, Exts.P5, P9, P16 & P17 orders in the rectification applications filed by the petitioner are quashed. The respondent is directed to reconsider the rectification applications of the petitioner and pass fresh W.P.(C)No.8222 of 2011 -3- orders, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/ "