Prabhath.V. vs. State Tax Officer - Kerala High Court, 27 March 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI WEDNE AY,THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1941 WP(C).No. 8811 of 2019 PETITIONER: PRABHATH.V.,AGED 40 YEARS S/O. VELAYUDHAN, PROPRIETOR, M/S. P.B ENTERPRISES, NARIYAMPARAMBU, KATTUSSERY, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD 678 542. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE TAX OFFICER, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, ALATHUR 678 541 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, TAX TOWERS, KILLIPPALLAM, KARAMANA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 002. OTHER PRESENT: GP DR. THUSHARA JAMES., SMT.KRISHNA FOR PETITIONER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC No.8811 of 2019 2 JUDGMENT Heard Smt.Krishna, holding for Mr.Harisankar V.Menon, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr.Thushara James, the learned counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner prays for the following reliefs: a) To direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to revise the returns with respect to returns for the months from August to December in the year 2013 and January to March in the year 2014 as prayed for in Ext.P2 forthwith by the issue of a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction. b) to grant the petitioner such other incidental reliefs including the costs of these proceedings.

The petitioner through communication dated 24.01.2015 requested the first respondent to revise the return filed for the period April 2013 to March 2014. According to the petitioner, the request was not considered and the assessment order dated 31.12.2018 was passed. According to the petitioner, the request of the petitioner for filing revised return, if is considered and an opportunity is given, the order dated 31.12.2018 would not have been passed. The order dated 31.12.2018, in fact, adverts to the disposal of the request made on 24.01.2015. On this aspect of the matter, an issue was raised that at

WPC No.8811 of 2019 3 all stages principles of natural justice are violated, by referring to uncommunicated order dated 24.1.2015 the assessment was made. The Court directed through the learned Government Pleader to make available the subject record for perusal. The record is produced for inspection and with the assistance of the counsel, this Court has perused the record. After perusing the record, it can fairly be concluded that the complaint of the petitioner that the request made through letter dated 24.01.2015, in fact, is not comprehensively considered and a decision if at all taken was communicated to the petitioner. This is a matter which can be asserted or denied by the parties by looking at the original record. The record speaks for itself that there is an omission in this behalf. This admitted position could not be contested by the learned Government Pleader as well. Therefore, the single ground on which the order of assessment cannot be allowed to sustain is made out and accordingly, the assessment order dated 31.12.2018, i.e. Ext.P3 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the first respondent for consideration of the request made through Ext.P2 and thereafter make assessment as is desirable in the circumstances of the case. The assessment relates to the period April

WPC No.8811 of 2019 4 2013 to March 2014. To avoid further delay, the petitioner is directed to appear before the first respondent personally and produce a copy of this judgment on 4th of April 2019 and on which date the first respondent would give further date of enquiry or investigation and complete the assessment, including passing necessary order on Ext.P2, within six weeks from today. S.V.BHATTI JUDGE css/

WPC No.8811 of 2019 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF STATEMENT SHOWING THE DIFFERENCES IN SALES VALUE EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.