L.G. Electronics INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Department Of State GST

Facts

The petitioner, L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., an assessee under the KVAT Act, filed returns for the year 2015-16. The first respondent, the Deputy Commissioner, issued a notice under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. The petitioner filed objections and requested a hearing and permission to produce further documents. Subsequently, the petitioner received an assessment order (Ext.P4) without being granted the requested opportunity of hearing. The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court, primarily on the grounds that it was issued illegally without providing a hearing and that it demonstrated a non-application of mind.

Held

The Court held that the contention regarding the denial of a reasonable opportunity of hearing was incorrect. A perusal of the assessment order (Ext.P4) indicated that an opportunity of being heard in person was given to the petitioner on 13.08.2020. The petitioner subsequently filed replies on 25.10.2020 and 18.03.2021. Furthermore, the Accounts Manager and Commercial Assistant from the petitioner's establishment appeared before the Assessing Officer on 18.03.2021 and produced additional details. Therefore, the claim that the order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing could not be sustained. The Court also noted that the decision relied upon by the petitioner was based on different facts. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Shivram Poddar v. ITO, the Court reiterated that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is to be exercised only when fundamental rights are infringed or jurisdiction is assumed without authority, and not when an effective alternative statutory remedy exists. Since the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy under the KVAT Act, the writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 18.03.2021 (Ext.P4) is illegal and ex facie illegal for being issued without affording the petitioner an adequate opportunity of hearing, as mandated by Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act? 2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal under the KVAT Act? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed on the same day they were granted time to file objections (18.03.2021) and without considering their reply, rendering it illegal. They also contended that the order suffered from a non-application of mind. The petitioner relied on the decision in Suzion Infrastructure Services v. Commercial Tax Officer [2010(3) KHC 299]. Respondent's Contentions: The respondent questioned the maintainability of the writ petition due to the availability of an alternative appellate remedy. They asserted that sufficient opportunity for hearing was granted, contrary to the petitioner's claims.