Kollam Internet Cable Distribution PVT. LTD. vs. State Tax Officer - Kerala High Court, 09 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 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 17TH ASWINA, 1941 WP(C).No.16360 OF 2019(T) PETITIONERS: KOLLAM INTERNET CABLE DISTRIBUTION PVT. LTD. THAMARAKKULAM, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, RAMESH KUMAR. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPAL RESPONDENT: STATE TAX OFFICER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX OFFICE, FIRST CIRCLE, KOLLAM-69100. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.16360 OF 2019(T) 2

JUDGMENT The challenge in the Writ Petition is against Ext.P6 assessment order passed under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act for the assessment year 2015-2016. The case of the petitioner is essentially that before passing Ext.P6 assessment order, there was no opportunity of hearing granted to him. I find from a perusal of Ext.P6 order, however, that there is a specific mention therein of a hearing that was conducted on 14.05.2019, in which the assessee appeared and presented his grievances based on the reply that was filed earlier on 08.05.2019. In the Writ Petition, there is no specific denial of this averment in the order impugned in the Writ Petition. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that there is no juri ictional error or violation of natural justice that would vitiate Ext.P6 order so as to warrant an interference with the said order in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more so when the petitioner has an effective alternate remedy by way of filing an appeal before the appellate authority under the Act. Resultantly, I dismiss the Writ Petition in its challenge against Ext.P6 order leaving it open to the petitioner to move the appellate authority against the said order.

WP(C).No.16360 OF 2019(T) 3 Taking note of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he would require some time to move the appellate authority, I direct that recovery steps pursuant to Ext.P6 order 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 respondent, for further action. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE mns

WP(C).No.16360 OF 2019(T) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 47(6) DATED 20.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER-SQUAD NO.

EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 25(1) DATED 20.11.2018 RECEIVED ON 8.3.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF REPLY DATED 19.3.2019 ADDRESSED TO THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE REVISED NOTICE DATED 8.4.2019. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 8.5.2019 ADDRESSED TO THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.5.2019. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL //// P.A TO JUDGE