Kag INDIA PVT Limited vs. State Of Kerala

Facts

The petitioner, KAG India Pvt Limited, challenged assessment orders (Ext.P2) issued under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, for the assessment years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017. The petitioner's grievance was that the notices for revised assessments were sent to their old address in Ponekkara, Kochi, despite the company having shifted its registered office to Companypady, Aluva, Ernakulam on September 20, 2016. The petitioner contended that this change of address had been communicated to the respondents, and subsequent communications, including a demand notice (Ext.P4), were sent to the new address, indicating the respondents' awareness of the change. The respondents, through the Government Pleader, argued that the change of address had not been properly intimated and the old address remained on record.

Held

The Court held that the assessment orders (Ext.P2) for the assessment years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 were issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court noted that Ext.P1(a), a postal cover, and Ext.P4, a demand notice, clearly indicated that the respondents were aware of the petitioner's new address. Therefore, the respondents could not claim ignorance of the new address to which the petitioner had shifted. The Court reasoned that by issuing notices to the old address despite knowing the new address, the petitioner was deprived of an effective opportunity to represent their case, thus violating the fundamental principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned assessment orders and directed the 3rd respondent to issue a fresh notice under Section 25(1) of the Act to the petitioner's correct address. The proceedings were to be completed after granting the petitioner an opportunity to file objections and be heard, within six months from the date of the judgment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment orders issued under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, are liable to be set aside for violation of the principles of natural justice due to notices being sent to the petitioner's old address? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the notices and intimations prior to the revised assessments were issued to their previous address, thereby preventing them from being effectively represented during the assessment proceedings. They relied on Ext.P1(a) and Ext.P4, which indicated that the respondents were aware of the change of address, to support their claim that the notices were sent to a wrong address, violating principles of natural justice. Revenue's Argument: The revenue contended that the alleged old address of the petitioner still remained on record and that the change of address had not been properly intimated by the petitioner.