Raji George (Proprietor) vs. The State Tax Officer
Original PDF →IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THUR AY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 16TH POUSHA, 1943 W.P.(C) NO.275 OF 2022 PETITIONER: RAJI GEORGE (PROPRIETOR), AGED 64 YEARS, M/S GREEN LAND SPICES, KATTAPPANA-685 508. BY ADVS. P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI HRITHWIK D. NAMBOOTHIRI RESPONDENTS: 1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, KATTAPPANA-685 508. 2 THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, IDUKKI-685531. ADV. THUSHARA JAMES, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) NO.275 OF 2022 -2- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.275 of 2022 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of January, 2022 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order of assessment dated 10.11.2021 for the assessment year 2016-17. The limited contention of the petitioner is based upon the violation of the principles of natural justice, in so far as Ext.P3 reply to the notice issued under Section 25(AA) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 dated 25.03.2021 was not considered by the 1st respondent assessing officer.
A perusal of Ext.P3 reply as well as Ext.P4 and Ext.P5 shows that the petitioner had submitted his reply to the notice at 11.22 a.m. on 29.03.2021 and again at 12.30 p.m. on 28.06.2021. However, in Ext.P6 assessment order, the 1st respondent has observed that the dealer failed to file any reply or appear in person in relation to the notice dated 27.03.2021. 3. Viewed in the light of the contention of the petitioner that the reply filed by the petitioner was refused to be received by the 1st respondent assessing officer, when he attempted to hand
W.P.(C) NO.275 OF 2022 -3- over the same coupled with the acknowledgment of e-mail as seen from Ext.P4 and Ext.P5, I am of the view that there is a violation of principles of natural justice, while issuing Ext.P6 assessment order. Accordingly, I deem it fit to set aside Ext.P6. 4. However, since the issue relates to the assessment year 2016-17, the assessing officer must be compelled to issue fresh assessment orders in a time bound manner. Accordingly, the petitioner, if he intends to file any further objection apart from Ext.P3, shall do so on or before 31.01.2022 and shall appear before the 1st respondent on 10.02.2022 for a hearing. After hearing the petitioner, appropriate orders thereon shall be passed by the 1st respondent within a period of two weeks thereafter. The writ petition is allowed as above. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE bpr
W.P.(C) NO.275 OF 2022 -4- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1OF THE ANNUAL RETURN DATED 10.01.2018 FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2OF THE PRE-ASSESSMENT NOTICE DATED 10.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3OF THE REPLY DATED 25.03.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4OF THE SCREENSHOT SHOWING THE GMAIL DATED 29.03.2021, SENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5OF THE SCREENSHOT SHOWING THE GMAIL DATED 28.06.2021, SENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 10.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P7OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE THIRD SCHEDULE SHOWING ENTRY 76 TO THE THIRD SCHEDULE IN KVAT ACT. EXHIBIT P8OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE THIRD SCHEDULE SHOWING ENTRY 120 TO THE THIRD SCHEDULE IN KVAT ACT. EXHIBIT P9OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE KERALA FINANCE ACT, 2013.
Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.