Biju Mathew vs. The Commercial Tax Officer (Luxury Tax) - Kerala High Court, 30 October 2019

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019/8TH KARTHIKA, 1941 W.P(C).No.29050 OF 2019(E) PETITIONER: BIJU MATHEW AGED 55 YEARS PROPRIETOR, BIJANS COTTAGE, V/911F, OTTAKATHALAMEDU ROAD, AMARAVATHI, IDUKKI, (RESIDING AT “THEVALETHU”, N.C.C. ROAD, AMBALAMUKKU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 005). BY ADVS.SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR SMT.P.LISSY JOSE SMT.ANJANA.S.SANTHOSH RESPONDENTS: 1 THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (LUXURY TAX) STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, IDUKKI AT KATTAPANA, PIN-685 508 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 002 BY SMT.THUSHARA JAMES, GOVT. PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No.29050/2019 : 2 :

J U D G M E N T The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P3 assessment order that was passed by the 1st respondent pursuant to a remand of the matter by the 2nd respondent Appellate Authority. The sole ground on which Ext.P3 assessment order is impugned is that before passing Ext.P3 order, the petitioner was not informed of the adjudication proceedings pursuant to the remand by the Appellate Authority. It is therefore contended that Ext.P3 order is vitiated on account of a non-compliance with the rules of natural justice.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I find from a perusal of Ext.P3 that the said order was passed without hearing the petitioner. Although the order refers to a notice having been served on the petitioner, it is apparent that the notice was served in the old address of the petitioner despite : 3 : the petitioner having informed the Department of the closure of the business at the said address. I therefore find that Ext.P3 order was passed without complying with the rules of natural justice. The said non-compliance vitiates Ext.P3 order, and I

therefore quash Ext.P3 order, 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 11.00 a.m. on 11.11.2019. The 1st respondent shall pass fresh orders, as directed, within one month thereafter. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of this judgment, before the 1st respondent, for further action. The writ petition is disposed as above. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE prp/30/10/19 : 4 : APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 10.04.2017 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2OF APPELLATE ORDER DATED 27.12.2018 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.12.2018 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4OF LETTER DATED 19.07.2017 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5OF LUXURY TAX RETURN FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P6OF LETTER DATED 12.04.2019 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER AND BRANCH HEAD, FEDERAL BANK LTD. KUMILY BRANCH. EXHIBIT P7 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:OF APPLICATION DATED 02.04.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. NIL. //// P.S. TO JUDGE