Kool Home Builders vs. State Of Kerala

JUDGMENT The challenge in the Writ Petition is against Ext.P3 assessment order passed in relation to the petitioner under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act for the assessment year 2013-2014. The main ground urged in the Writ Petition in its challenge against Ext.P3 order is that the petitioner was not afforded an adequate opportunity of hearing before Ext.P3 order was passed, and therefore, that the said order is vitiated by a non-compliance with the rules of natural justice. I find, however, that a pre-assessment notice was served on the petitioner on 24.05.2019 in response to which he filed an application for adjournment and requested for one month time to file objections. The petitioner was therefore given time up to 18.06.2019 and an opportunity of hearing on the said date. On the said date, the petitioner filed another application for exemption and requested a further two weeks time for producing documents. The said opportunity was also granted to him on 28.06.2019. On that day the petitioner eventually filed a reply dated 28.06.2019 and thereafter, appeared for another hearing that was extended to him on 02.07.2019. At the said hearing, he again sought an opportunity of further personal hearing. The assessing authority granted him the said opportunity as well and posted the matter for personal hearing on 22.07.2019. It would appear that the petitioner did not turn up for the hearing on 22.07.2019. WP(C).No.32906 OF 2019(K) 3 and hence the assessing authority proceeded to decide the matter and pass Ext.P3 order. Taking note of the above, I am of the view that ample opportunity was given to the petitioner for pursuing the matter with the assessing authority and the contention of the petitioner that he was not afforded an opportunity of hearing before passing Ext.P3 order cannot be countenanced. I, therefore, find that this is not a case that warrants an interference with Ext.P3 in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At any rate, the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by way of an appeal before the appellate authority under the KVAT Act. The Writ Petition in its challenge against Ext.P3 order is therefore dismissed relegating the petitioner to his alternative remedy of an appeal before the appellate authority under the Act. Taking note of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he would require sometime to move the appellate authority, I direct that the recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 demand notice shall be kept in abeyance for a period of three weeks so as to enable the petitioner to move the appellate authority in the meanwhile. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of this judgment, before the respondents, for further action. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE mns

WP(C).No.32906 OF 2019(K) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE NOTICE NO.32072018591/2013- 14 DATED 20/05/2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.