Brd Motor Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax - Kerala High Court, 13 August 2021

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 16773 OF 2021 PETITIONER: BRD MOTOR LIMITED, TKM COMPLEX, KOKKALAI, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR.KOLLANNUR CHUMMAR SAMU. BY ADVS. SRI. A.KUMAR SRI. P.J.ANILKUMAR SMT. G.MINI(1748) SRI. P.S.SREE PRASAD SRI. JOB ABRAHAM SRI. AJAY V.ANAND RESPONDENT: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, SPECIAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR-680001. BY ADV. SMT.THUSHARA JAMES, SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.16773 OF 2021(V) -2-

JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court impugning Ext.P6 on various grounds, but primarily that he had not been offered an opportunity of being heard, before issuing the same.

However, the learned Senior Government Pleader – Smt.Thushara James, vehemently opposed the afore allegations, saying that she has been instructed by her clients that several opportunities had been offered to the petitioner after issuing notices to him, but that he had not cared to respond to any of them or to present himself for hearing at the time when the assessment was completed.

Smt.Thushara

James

contended

that, therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court with gross malafides in having alleged that he had not been offered any opportunity of being heard.

WP(C) NO.16773 OF 2021(V) -3-

I have examined Ext.P6 – which is the order impugned in this writ petition; and notice that there is no specific reference therein to any such opportunity of hearing having been afforded to the petitioner. Of course, I do not say that this means that no such opportunity had been afforded to him; but, since the assessment is one that has been made by the Officer at the first instance, I am certain that petitioner must be given one last latitude - by way of an indulgence, so that his version can also be heard before the same is finalized against him. I record that Smt.Thushara James also acceded to this.

Solely for the afore reasons, I order this writ petition and set aside Ext.P6; with a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider the returns filed by the petitioner for the assessment year 2015-16, after affording him an opportunity of being heard – either physically

WP(C) NO.16773 OF 2021(V) -4- or through video conferencing. In order to enable an expeditious compliance of the directions in this judgment, I direct the petitioner to mark appearance in the office of the 2nd respondent at 11 A.M. on 24.08.2021; on which day, said Authority will either hear him or fix another date for hearing and complete the proceedings as per law. This writ petition is thus ordered. DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE ww

WP(C) NO.16773 OF 2021(V) -5- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE NOTICE DATED 17.01.2019. EXHIBIT P2OF THE REPLY OF THE PETITIONER DATED NIL. EXHIBIT P3OF THE NOTICE DATED 04.03.2021. EXHIBIT P4OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 24.03.2021. EXHIBIT P5OF THE NOTICE DATED 25.03.2021. EXHIBIT P6OF THE ORDER DATED 27.04.2021.