Rane Brake Lining LTD v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) - Kerala High Court, 06 June 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 18086 OF 2022 PETITIONER/S: RANE BRAKE LINING LTD EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-682024. [REGD.OFFICE: "MAITHRI", 132, CATHEDRAL ROAD, CHENNAI600086] REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY L. SRINIVASAN. BY ADVS. S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) SABU C.J M.RAJAGOPAL RAHUL A. APARNA ANIL RESPONDENT/S: 1 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT) [SINCE RE-DESIGNATED AS DY. COMMISSIONER], SPECIAL CIRCLE-I, STATE GST DEPARTMENT,. THEVARA, KOCHI. PIN:682015. 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI- 682030. SMT. JASMIN M M (GP) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) NO. 18086 OF 2022 2 JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court, being aggrieved by Ext.P5 order of assessment in respect of the year 2015-2016 under the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that Ext.P5 has no legs to stand, as admittedly, the same was issued without proper notice to the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner stopped its business activities in Kerala with effect from 01.12.2019 and Ext.P4 intimation was given to the 1st respondent in that regard under proper acknowledgment. It is submitted that in Ext.P4, the address for all future correspondence was also given to the 1st respondent. It is submitted that however, notice preceding Ext.P5 was issued at the earlier address of the petitioner in Kerala and the assessment proceeded ex-parte as according to the assessing authority, the notice issued to the petitioner had been returned with the endorsement ‘addressee left’.

Learned Government Pleader submits that going by Ext.P5 notice, the notice had been issued to the principal place of business of the petitioner. However, it is fairly conceded that the notice issued was not at the address given in Ext.P4. WP(C) NO. 18086 OF 2022 3

Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that Ext.P5 order is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, Ext.P5 order is quashed. The petitioner shall mark appearance before the officer who passed Ext.P5 (the 1st respondent) on or before 30.06.2022. Thereafter, the assessment shall be completed afresh, after taking note of any submission that may be made by the petitioner and after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Fresh order, as above, shall be issued as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within two months from today. The writ petition is allowed in the manner indicated. GOPINATH P. JUDGE ajt

WP(C) NO. 18086 OF 2022 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18086/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF AUDIT REPORT AND STATEMENT FORM 13 & 13A FOR THE YEAR 2015-16. Exhibit P2 COPY OF TRADING ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 Exhibit P3 COPY OF LETTER DATED 4-05-2018 ADDRESS TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, Exhibit P4 COPY OF LETTER DATED 11-12-2019 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5 COPY OF ORDER DATED 31-01-2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-2016. Exhibit P6 COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 29-04-20 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER THE RR ACT.