P.V.RON V. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

WA/1662/2016

AI Insights

The case involves P.V. Ron, the appellant, who is an assessee under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, contesting an assessment order issued by the Agricultural Income Tax and Commercial Tax Officer, Alathur. The dispute arose from discrepancies between the appellant's audited accounts and the returns filed, which led to proceedings under Section 25 of the KVAT Act. The appellant requested a cross-examination of certain individuals during the proceedings, which was not granted, leading to the challenge of the assessment order on the grounds of violation of natural justice. The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the assessment order and rejecting the appellant's claims.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 699193 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 23-08-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Kerala Value Added Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: MOHAMMED RAFIQ
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISANKAR MENON; MEERA MENON
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Cross Examination; Cross-examination; KVATIS; Natural Justice
• Section: 25

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2016/1ST BHADRA, 1938 W.A.No.1662 of 2016 IN WP(C).30486/2015 --------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)30486/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 04-07-2016 APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------- P.V.RON M/S. GLORIA TRADERS, KIZHAKKANCHERRY ROAD, VADAKKANCHERRY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ---------------------- THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER ALATHUR-678 541. R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Writ Appeal No.1662 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2016 JUDGMENT Antony Dominic, J. This appeal has been filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.30486/15. By the judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. It is aggrieved by this judgment, this appeal is filed. 2. We heard the counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 3. The appellant is an assessee under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. Based on the inconsistency between the audited accounts and the returns filed by the appellant with the details available in the KVATIS, proceedings under Section 25 of the KVAT Act were initiated against the appellant. Accordingly, Ext.P1 notice was issued. On receipt of the notice, the appellant submitted Ext.P2 reply where, inter alia, made a request to summon the outstation dealers, drivers and owner of the vehicle in which the goods were allegedly transported to Kerala and permit him to cross examine W.A.1662 of 2016 : 2 : them. Although an opportunity of hearing was offered to the appellant on 8.7.2015, the appellant did not appear before the respondent. Respondent, therefore, passed Ext.P3 assessment order under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. It was this order, which was challenged. The main contention raised by the appellant before the learned Single Judge and which was reiterated before us was the violation of principles of natural justice. According to the appellant, despite a specific request made in Ext.P2, an opportunity of cross examination was not allowed and, therefore, Ext.P2 order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, entitling the appellant for proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Having considered this submission made, we confess our inability to accept the same. True, on the initiation of the proceedings under Section 25 of the Act, when notice was issued, the appellant filed his reply as Ext.P2. In the reply, he also sought an opportunity of cross examination. However, if the appellant was of the view that in order to substantiate his contention, such an W.A.1662 of 2016 : 3 : opportunity of hearing was essential, according to us, it was incumbent on the part of the appellant to appear before the respondent on 8.7.2015 and to convince the necessity to allow him an opportunity to cross examine the persons who would have substantiated his contention. On the other hand, the appellant appear did not appear before the respondent and instead kept away from the proceedings which resulted in Ext.P3 order. 5. In such a situation, we are unable to infer a case of violation of principles of natural justice on the part of the respondent in concluding the proceedings and passing Ext.P3. We are also of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly. SD/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE SD/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE jes "