Muhammed Fayad vs. Commercial Tax Officer - Kerala High Court, 08 October 2020

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 16TH ASWINA, 1942 WP(C).No.19458 OF 2020(F) PETITIONER: MUHAMMED FAYAD, AGED 50 YEARS F.A. TRADERS, CW 3178, VYDOORYA COMPLEX, GOPAL STREET, KANNUR-670 001 BY ADVS. SRI.K.N.SREEKUMARAN SRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR (A-1768) SRI.N.SANTHOSHKUMAR RESPONDENTS: 1 COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, (NOW DESIGNATED AS STATE TAX OFFICER), 1ST CIRCLE, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTEMENT, KANNUR-670 001 2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, ERANJIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 006 3 DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR) KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR-670 001 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER DR.THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.19458 OF 2020(F) 2

JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Exts.P7 and P8 assessment orders passed by the 1st respondent. In the Writ Petition, it is the case of the petitioner that the issue regarding classification and the rate of tax to be levied on margarine, which was the subject matter of litigation before this Court as also the Supreme Court, has been mechanically decided against the petitioner by the 1st respondent. In the Writ petition, it is the further case of the petitioner that before passing Exts.P7 and P8 orders he was not afforded an opportunity of hearing. It is, therefore, contended that impugned orders are vitiated by a non-compliance with the rules of natural justice.

The learned Government Pleader would submit, on instructions, that the 1st respondent proceeded to pass the impugned orders as the petitioner had not responded to a notice that was issued to him calling for records for the purposes of finalisation of the assessments. I note, however, that the notice itself was issued immediately prior to the lock down imposed in the country in connection with the covid pandemic and hence, the petitioner was perhaps justified in not making available the documents within the time granted by the 1st respondent . At any rate, I also find that the petitioner was not heard prior to passing Exts.P7 and P8 orders. I, therefore, quash Exts.P7 and P8 orders as vitiated by a non-

WP(C).No.19458 OF 2020(F) 3 compliance with the rules of natural justice and direct the 1st respondent to pass fresh orders in the matter, after hearing the petitioner. To enable the 1st respondent to do so, I direct the petitioner to appear before the 1st respondent at his office at 11 am on 28.10.2020. The hearing can be conducted either through physical appearance or through video conference as may be convenient to the parties. The 1st respondent shall pass fresh orders within a month thereafter. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE mns

WP(C).No.19458 OF 2020(F) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27.2.2016 FOR 2012-13 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED27.2.2016 FOR 2013-14 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3OF DEBIT NOTES DATED 31.7.2017 ISSUED BY M/S. 3F INDUSTRIES LTD, VADUTHALA, ERNAKULAM FOR 2012-13. EXHIBIT P4OF THE DEBIT NOTES DATED 31.7.2017 ISSUED BY M/S. 3F INDUSTRIES LTD, VADUTHALA, ERNAKULAM FOR 2013-14. EXHIBIT P5OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 3.10.2019 IN VATA 1227/2017 AND 1234/2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6OF THE NOTICE DATED 18.3.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7OF THE RESTORED ASSESSMENT ORDER NO. 32120549875/12-13 DATED 16.7.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8OF THE RESTORED ASSESSMENT ORDER NO. 32120549875/13-14 DATED 16.7.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL //// P.A TO JUDGE