Advanced Construction Technologies PVT.LTD vs. The Assistant Commissioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 8TH ASHADHA, 1942 WP(C).No.10021 OF 2020(C) PETITIONER/S: ADVANCED CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD DOOR NO.VII/267A,MALIKAMPEEDIKA,ALANGAD VILLAGE,KOTTAPURAM KARA,ALUVA-683511. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.REPRESENTED BY MR.SUNIL KUMAR.C.N,AUTHORISED SIGNATORY BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH JERARD SAMSON RODRIGUES RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SPECIAL CIRCLE-III,STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT,ERNAKULAM-682015. 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT,9TH FLOOR,TAX TOWERS, KARAMANA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695002. OTHER PRESENT: GP DR THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.06.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.10021 OF 2020(C) 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 29th day of June 2020 The petitioner, Advanced Construction Technologies Pvt. Ltd., through the instant writ petition has laid challenge to Ext.P6 Assessment Order and Ext.P7 Demand Notice on the ground that the principles of audi alteram partem have not been complied with much less the material placed on record has not been adverted to and therefore instead of availing alternative remedy of appeal approached this Court. 2. In support of the aforementioned prayer, it is averred that the petitioner received a pre-assessment notice, Ext.P1 for the assessment year 2013-14 under Section 25(1) of erstwhile KVAT Act, 2003 pointing out certain discrepancies. The petitioner submitted a point-wise reply dated 14.2.2020, Ext.P2 and requested the First Respondent to provide the KVATIS Check Post Data of Local Purchase/Stock Transfer (IN) in complete numerical figures instead of Lakhs and the data uploaded WP(C).No.10021 OF 2020(C) 3 in the returns and proved the genuineness of those transactions. 3. On 14.2.2020, hearing notice was issued directing the petitioner to appear on 28.2.2020. The petitioner appeared before the first respondent and filed an additional reply stating inability to prove the discrepancies and further requested to provide the KVATIS Check Post Data in complete numerical figures for the purpose of reconciliation with its Books of Accounts. 4. On 4.3.2020, the request was submitted to the first respondent to permit revision of returns for the months of April, May, June, August, September, October, January and March for the Assessment year 2013-14 vide Ext.P5. On 9.3.2020, the First Respondent issued Assessment Order and notice of Demand for Rs.1,35,46,935/-, Exts.P6 and P7. The petitioner approached the 2nd respondent and submitted a representation dated 19.3.2020, Ext.P8, requesting not to initiate any coercive steps against the demand. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the reasoning assigned by the WP(C).No.10021 OF 2020(C) 4 Assessing Officer of not filing the audited return is wholly fallacious and erroneous. The first respondent committed illegality in rejecting Ext.P5 request seeking revision of returns as also the annual return for the assessment year 2013-14. It would be a total farcical exercise in availing the remedy of appeal and thus the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked. 6. Learned Government Pleader has raised the objection qua maintainability of the writ petition in view of the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 55 of the erstwhile Act. The order impugned is detailed and reveals affording of an ample opportunity. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book and of the view that the writ petition sans merit and liable to be dismissed. On plain and simple reading of the impugned order, it is evident that ample opportunity had been given to the petitioner to appear and detailed reply has been filed which has been extracted in extenso. As regards the authentication by the auditors through the statement, in my view it would be a question of fact which can always be agitated in WP(C).No.10021 OF 2020(C) 5 appeal but not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being disputed question of fact. I would not be commenting further, as it may not prejudice the right of the petitioner. For the reason aforementioned, the writ petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- AMIT RAWAL sab JUDGE WP(C).No.10021 OF 2020(C) 6 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED NOTICE NO.32071171825/2013-14 DATED 01.02.2020, ISSSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 14.02.2020, SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE NO.320711871825/2013-14 DATED 14.02.2020,ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY LETTER DATED 28.02.2020,SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04.03.2020,SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P6