Joy Varghese vs. Commercial Tax Officer - Kerala High Court, 23 March 2018

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 2ND CHAITHRA,1940 WP(C).No. 4903 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) JOY VARGHESE PROPRIETOR, VANAKUDIYIL OIL AGENCIES, VIII-141-D, PULLAMKANDAM, KATTILAPOOVAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT- 680 028. BY ADV.SRI.TOMSON T.EMMANUEL RESPONDENT(S): 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, 2ND CIRCLE, PUTHOLE, THRISSUR- 680 004. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES COMPLEX, PUTHOLE, THRISSUR- 680 004. R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.M.JASMINE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 4903 of 2018 (K) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1:- TRUE COPY OF SALES INVOICE DETAILS UPLOADED BY PETITIONER IN THE RETURN SUBMITTED FOR THE MONTH OF MAY 2016, BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2:- TRUE COPY OF SALES INVOICES DETAILS UPLOADED BY PETITION IN THE RETURN SUBMITTED FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 2016, BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3:- TRUE COPY OF ANNUAL RETURN DATED 09-06-2017 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2016-17, WITH PROOF OF PAYMENT OF OUTPUT TAX ON ENTIRE TRANSACTIONS. EXHIBIT P4:- TRUE COPY OF ONLINE 'C' FORM DECLARATION NO. 33201161701064765135 OBTAINED BY PETITIONER AGAINST INTERSTATE SALES MADE TO A CUSTOMER DEALER AND PRODUCED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT IN SUPPORT OF CONCESSION CLAIMED IN RETURN SUBMITTED FOR MAY 2016. EXHIBIT P5:- TRUE COPY OF ONLINE 'C' FORM DECLARATION NO. HR06WC2241408 OBTAINED BY PETITIONER AGAINST INTERSTATE SALES MADE TO A CUSTOMER DEALER AND PRODUCED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT IN SUPPORT OF CONCESSION CLAIMED IN RETURN SUBMITTED FOR JUNE 2016. EXHIBIT P6:- TRUE COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT FOR 2016-17 IN REJECTING EXT P4 AND P5 'C' FORM DECLARATIONS, WITHOUT NOTICE OR HEARING TO PETITIONER, WHICH IS PASSED IN GROSS VIOLATION TO THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.320806 96727 DATED 10.10.2017 ISSUE TO PETITIONER BY 1ST RESPONDENT, UNDER CST RULES 2016-17, DIRECTING TO PRODUCE C FORM DECLARATION AGAINST CONCESSION CLAIMED IN EXT.P3 ANNUAL RETURN RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- P.A. TO JUDGE SKS P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. ================== W.P.(C.) No.4903 of 2018 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2018

JUDGMENT Petitioner was an assessee under the Central Sales Tax Act ('the Act'). Proceedings have been initiated by the assessing authority under the Act for revising the assessment of the petitioner for the year 2016-17. Ext.P7 is the notice issued by the assessing authority in this connection. It is stated in Ext.P7 notice that the petitioner had though effected interstate sales to the tune of Rs.48,19,300/- and claimed concessional rate of tax on the said turnover, he has not produced the C Forms in respect of the said transactions. The case of the petitioner is that though the petitioner produced C-forms in respect of the transactions pursuant to Ext.P7 notice, without affording the petitioner a further opportunity of hearing, Ext.P6 order was passed on the ground that the C-Forms produced by the petitioner are defective. The petitioner, therefore, challenges Ext.P6 order straight away in this proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, conceded that the defects found by the assessing authority in the C-forms produced by the petitioner were not put to the notice of the petitioner before Ext.P6 order was passed.

If it is found in a given case that the C-Forms produced by a dealer are defective, it is incumbent upon the assessing authority to provide the dealer an opportunity to cure the defects before the same are rejected and assessment is completed on that basis. In the said view of the matter, according to me, Ext.P6 order is vitiated for non-compliance of the principles of natural justice. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, Ext.P6 order is quashed and the assessing authority is directed to pass fresh orders after affording the petitioner an opportunity to cure the defects, if any, found in the C-forms produced by the petitioner. P.B. SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE SKS