V.Selma vs. The State Tax Officer - Kerala High Court, 11 August 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS WEDNE AY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1943 OP (TAX) NO. 11 OF 2021 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.07.2019 IN TA (VAT) NO. 736/2017 OF KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ APPELLANT/ ASSESSEE : V.SELMA, M/S.GRAND AGENCIES, ANDATHODE, VELAKERY HOUSE, P.O. ERAMANGALAM, THRISSUR BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/ REVENUE : 1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER-1 STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, CHAVAKKAD - 680 506. 2 THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SALES TAX COMPLEX, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM - 682 015, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS OP TAX HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT Dated this the 11th day of August, 2021 Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.

Petitioner is an assessee to sales tax. Aggrieved by the assessment order for the year 2013-14, assessee preferred an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals). Though assessee obtained certain reliefs, further appeals were preferred to the Kerala Value-Added Tax Appellate Tribunal Ernakulam as TA (VAT) No. 736/2017. Defects were noticed by the office of the Tribunal and as per Ext. P4, it was intimated to the appellant. However, when the appeal was taken up for consideration before the Tribunal, after noticing that the appellant had not cured the defects and also on account of lack of representation, the appeals were dismissed for default. This OP (Tax) is preferred against the order dismissing the appeal for default.

We heard Advocate Harishankar V. Menon, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. V. K Shamsudheen.

The learned Government Pleader brings to our notice Regulation 50 of the KVAT Appellate Tribunal & Regulations 2009 and contended that the assessee has an alternate remedy before the Tribunal itself.

On a perusal of Regulation 50 referred to above, it is evident that when an appeal is dismissed for default, a remedy is available for the aggrieved party before the Tribunal itself by filing a petition for restoration of the proceedings to file. If sufficient cause is shown, the Tribunal is entitled to restore the same and proceed with consideration of the appeal.

Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy before the Tribunal itself as provided under Regulation 50, as mentioned above. In the above circumstances, we dispose of this original petition giving liberty to the petitioner to move the Tribunal to set aside the default order in TA (VAT) No. 736/2017 and also to cure the defects on condition that the petitioner files the application as aforementioned, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the application as aforesaid is preferred by the petitioner within the time specified above, the same shall be considered and disposed of as expeditiously as possible. If on the other hand the application as directed is not preferred, benefit under this order shall not accrue to the assessee. S.V.BHATTI, JUDGE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE RKM APPENDIX OF OP (TAX) 11/2021 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : P1 : COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 P2 : COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), THRISSUR. P3 : COPY OF APPEAL MOVED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3 (a) : COPY OF STAY APPLICATION MOVED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4 : COPY OF DEFECT NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P5 : COPY OF LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER'S CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. P6 : COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P7 : COPY OF ORDER IN TA (VAT) NO.736/2017 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.