Solar Marketing And Services vs. Intelligence Officer - Kerala High Court, 21 November 2019

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 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1941 WP(C).No.28876 OF 2019(H) PETITIONER: M/S.SOLAR MARKETING AND SERVICES KOKKALAI, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, JOHN VELUKKARAN, 53 YEARS, S/O.V.K.RAPPAI, VELUKARAN HOUSE, NEAR KRIPATHEERTHAM CONVENT, MUNDOOR PALAM, THRISSUR-680005. BY ADV. SMT.SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN RESPONDENTS: 1 INTELLIGENCE OFFICER INTELLIGENCE SQUAD NO.1, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR. 2 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR. 3 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER DR. THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.28876 OF 2019(H) 2

JUDGMENT The challenge in the Writ petition is against Ext.P4 appellate order passed by the 1st appellate authority in an appeal against an order of assessment passed against the petitioner under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. The challenge in the Writ Petition against Ext.P4 order is premised on the contention that, before passing Ext.P4 order, the petitioner was not heard. It is therefore submitted that Ext.P4 order is vitiated by a non-compliance with the rules of natural justice.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. The learned Government Pleader would submit on instructions, that a representative of the petitioner had actually appeared for the hearing before the appellate authority although Ext.P4 order does not reflect this fact. I notice that in Ext.P4, the stand of the appellate authority is that no one appeared before him, and further that there was no request for adjournment either. In view of the conflicting statements, I feel that the benefit of doubt should be given to the assessee. I, therefore, quash Ext.P4 order and direct the 2nd respondent to pass a fresh order in the matter, after hearing the petitioner. To enable the 2nd

WP(C).No.28876 OF 2019(H) 3 respondent to do so, I direct the petitioner to appear before the 2nd respondent at his office at 11 am on 10.12.2019. The 2nd respondent shall pass fresh orders of assessment as directed within a month thereafter. I make it clear that, at the hearing before the 2nd respondent, it will be open to the appellant to rely on any material to support its contentions in the appeal. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE mns

WP(C).No.28876 OF 2019(H) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1OF THE INVOICE DATED 18.07.15 ISSUED BY SHAKTI HORMANN PRIVATE LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD. EXHIBIT P2OF THE ORDER DATED 28.06.2016 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3OF THE SALES INVOICE DATED 29.07.2015 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4OF THE ORDER DATED 16.02.19 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL //// P.A TO JUDGE