Dinu Jijo vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, Thrissur

Facts

The petitioner, Dinu Jijo, proprietrix of Prakasham Furni Mart, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 05.04.2013 (corrected to 05.04.2014) issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Thrissur. The order assessed Value Added Tax (VAT) at Rs. 1,07,818.95 for January 2013. A notice dated 05.04.2013 under Section 24(1) of the KVAT Act 2003 was issued, requiring the petitioner to reply by the 29th of the month of issue and appear personally. The petitioner submitted a reply on 29.03.2014. The petitioner contended that the date on the notice was erroneous, leading to their inability to appear for the personal hearing. The impugned order was passed without a proper personal hearing.

Held

The Court held that the assessment order dated 05.04.2013 (corrected to 05.04.2014) was vitiated due to anomalies and mistakes in the date of the notice and the assessment order. The Court inferred that the notice date was likely 05.03.2014, not 05.04.2013, given the petitioner's reply submission date of 29.03.2014 and the notice's instruction to reply by the 29th of the month of issue. This discrepancy led to the petitioner being denied a proper personal hearing, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside. The case was remanded to the Commercial Tax Officer for fresh assessment, with directions to provide the petitioner with an opportunity for hearing, consider their reply and submissions, and finalize the assessment within 45 days. The petitioner was directed to appear on 16.08.2023.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated 05.04.2013, which was corrected to 05.04.2014, is vitiated due to a discrepancy in the date of the notice issued under Section 24(1) of the KVAT Act 2003, thereby denying the petitioner a proper opportunity for personal hearing? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the notice dated 05.04.2013 was erroneous, as evidenced by their reply filed on 29.03.2014, which was within the stipulated time frame mentioned in the notice itself. This discrepancy prevented them from attending the personal hearing, thus violating principles of natural justice. They relied on the fact that the reply was filed within the time granted in the notice, indicating the notice date was likely intended to be 05.03.2014. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondents (Commercial Tax Officer).