Sindhu Asokkumar vs. 1. The Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax

Facts

The petitioner, Sindhu Asokkumar, proprietor of M/s. Keerthi Regency, a registered dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, challenged an order of assessment dated December 17, 2021. The petitioner had opted for the compounding scheme of assessment for the assessment year 2013-2014, which continued until 2019-2020. On December 3, 2021, the petitioner received a notice dated November 22, 2021, requiring objections to a proposed assessment within 14 days of receipt. The petitioner contended that the 14-day period expired at midnight on December 17, 2021. However, the Assessing Officer issued an ex parte assessment order on December 17, 2021, before the expiry of the stipulated period.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order of assessment dated December 17, 2021, was issued in explicit violation of the principles of natural justice. The Assessing Officer's own admission that the notice was served on December 3, 2021, meant that the 14-day period granted to the petitioner for filing objections would expire only at midnight on December 17, 2021. Consequently, the Assessing Officer could not have legally issued the assessment order on the same day. The Court reasoned that adherence to the notice period is a fundamental aspect of natural justice, ensuring the assessee has adequate time to respond. Therefore, the assessment order was set aside. For a fresh assessment concerning the assessment year 2019-2020, the petitioner was granted 30 days from the judgment's receipt to file objections to the original notice. If objections were filed, the Assessing Officer was directed to grant a hearing after prior notice and pass an appropriate decision within three months thereafter.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order of assessment dated December 17, 2021, issued by the Assessing Officer, was in violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically concerning the notice period granted to the petitioner? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of the notice period and the principles of natural justice). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the notice dated November 22, 2021, was received on December 3, 2021, granting 14 days for objections, which would expire at midnight on December 17, 2021. The issuance of the assessment order on December 17, 2021, therefore, infringed upon this period and violated the principles of natural justice. The petitioner relied on the explicit terms of the notice and the fundamental right to a fair hearing. Respondents' Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the court's analysis implies that the respondents' action of issuing the order on December 17, 2021, was contested by the petitioner.