V.A.ANTONY V. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/24098/2017

AI Insights

V.A. Antony, the proprietor of Amala Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging the assessment orders issued against him by the Agricultural Income Tax & Commercial Tax Officer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. The assessments for the years 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2014-15 were contested on the grounds of non-compliance with the rules of natural justice, specifically the lack of a hearing before the assessments were made. The court examined the circumstances under which the assessments were made, noting the petitioner's failure to respond to the notices served. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, allowing the assessments to stand but granted a three-week period for the petitioner to approach the appellate authority.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755418 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: KVAT Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SHAMSUDEEN
• Assessee Lawyers: V NARASIMHAM; P RIYAS
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Ex-parte; Natural Justice; Pre-assessment notice
• Section: 25(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2017/29TH ASHADHA, 1939 WP(C).No. 24098 of 2017 (I) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- V.A.ANTONY PROPRIETOR, AMALA ENTERPRISES VADUTHALA JETTY P.O, AROOKUTTY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688 535, BY ADVS.SRI.V.DEVANANDA NARASIMHAM SRI.P.H.RIYAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER COMMERCIAL TAXES, KUTHIYATHODE, PIN - 688 533 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, TAX TOWER, KILLIPPALAM, KARAMANA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 002 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. SHAMSUDEEN V.K. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rk WP(C).No. 24098 of 2017 (I) ------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------ EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PRE-ASSESMENT NOTICE DATED 08-03-2016 ISSUED U/S 25(1) OF THE KVAT ACT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PRE-ASSESSMENT NOTICE DATED 08-03-2016 ISSUED U/S 25(1) OF THE KVAT ACT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PRE-ASSESSMENT NOTICE DATED 08-03-2016 ISSUED U/S 25(1) OF THE KVAT ACT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31-05-2017 PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT U/S 25(1) OF THE KVAT ACT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31-05-2017 PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT U/S 25(1) OF THE KVAT ACT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31-05-2017 PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT U/S 25 (1) OF THE KVAT ACT FOR THE YEAR 2014 - 15. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RETURN FILED BY THE SUPPLIER, SACHIN TIMBERS AGAINST ITS SALE BILL DATED 16-06-11 IN RESPECT OF TAX EFFECT RS.7,437/- RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL ---------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// PS TO JUDGE rk A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.24098 of 2017 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of July, 2017 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P4 to P6 assessment orders passed against him under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. It is the case of the petitioner in the writ petition that the said assessment orders were passed without hearing the petitioner, and therefore, are vitiated on account of non-compliance with the rules of natural justice. 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 from a perusal of Exts.P4 to P6 assessment orders that the petitioner did not either respond to the pre-assessment notice or the hearing notice that were served on him, and it is under those circumstances that the assessment orders were passed ex parte and without hearing the petitioner. Considering the facts in the present case, I am of the view that Exts.P4 to P6 assessment orders do not call for any interference by this Court in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition in its challenge against W.P.(c).No.24098 of 2017 : 2 : Exts.P4 to P6 assessment orders, therefore fails, and is accordingly, dismissed. Taking note of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would require some time to move the appellate authority, recovery steps pursuant to Exts.P4 to P6 assessment orders shall be kept in abeyance for a period of three weeks, so as to enable the petitioner to move the appellate authority in the meanwhile. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE sm/ "