Avance Engineering And Infrastructures PVT LTD. vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes - Kerala High Court, 09 November 2018

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU FRIDAY ,THE 09TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1940 WP(C).No. 36382 of 2018 PETITIONER/S: AVANCE ENGINEERING AND INFRASTRUCTURES PVT LTD. 33/2850 A VAKKATU ROAD, CHAKKARAPARAMBU, THAMANAM P.O., KOCHI. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI SONY K SCARIA. BY ADVS. SRI.SOJAN JAMES SHRI.SIVANKUTTY S. RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (WORKS CONTRACT) STATE GOODS AND SERVICES DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM-682 031 By GP DR. THUSHARA JAMES. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 WP(C).No. 36382 of 2018

JUDGMENT The petitioner, an assessee suffered the Ext.P4 assessment order. Though it has an efficacious alternative remedy, the petitioner has filed this writ petition on the grounds that the order suffers from the vice of violating the principles of natural justice.

The petitioner's counsel contends that in March 2018, the petitioner, through the Ext.P2, placed on record its defence, besides submitting the relevant documents under the Ext.P3. He also contends that though the assessing authority assured that the petitioner would have an opportunity of personal hearing on 11.04.2018, the petitioner's representative was not notified about that.

The learned Government Pleader on the other hand contends that the Ext.P1 is a pre-assessment notice specifically mentioning the date and time. It was for the petitioner's representatives, according to her, to have appeared before the authorities. The Ext.P1 communication did not contemplate any notice of intimation. Nevertheless, she agrees that the impugned Ext.P4 assessment order contains no reference to the petitioner's defence in Ext.P2. 4. Under these circumstances, I reckon that the Ext.P4 assessment order, as the petitioner's counsel rightly contended/suffers from the vice of violating the principles of natural justice. I, therefore, set it aside and remand the matter to the 2nd respondent for fresh adjudication, in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU SB/13/11/2018 JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF HE PRE-ASSESSMENT NOTICE DATED 12.3.2018 EXHIBIT P2 AOF THE REPLY TOGETHER WITH THE FORM 16A, DATED 28.3.2018 EXHIBIT P3OF THE COVERING LETTER SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THE FINAL ACCOUNTS,ANNUAL RETURN, FORM, 13,13A FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 TO 2016-17, DATED 28.3.2018 EXHIBIT P4OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 DATED 23.06.2018 WHICH WAS SERVED ON 13.10.2018 EXHIBIT P5OF THE POSTAL ENVELOP DATED 13.10.2018 RESPONDENTS EXTS: NIL //// P.A TO JUDGE