T. G. Gireesh vs. 1. The State Tax Officer, Ii Circle, Kollam

Facts

The petitioner, T.G. Gireesh, proprietor of M/s Amrutha Cashews, challenged an order (Ext.P3) issued under Section 66 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. This order rejected his application for rectification of an assessment order (issued under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act for the assessment year 2016-17). The petitioner contended that he filed the rectification application due to mistakes apparent on the face of the record and specifically requested an opportunity of hearing. However, the application was rejected without granting a hearing and the order was non-speaking. The State Tax Officer is the authority who passed the order under challenge. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated.

Held

The Court held that Ext.P3, the order rejecting the rectification petition, was liable to be set aside. The Court found that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind to the specific mistakes pointed out by the petitioner, rendering the order non-speaking. Regarding the opportunity of hearing, although the statute did not explicitly provide for it, the Court found that since the petitioner had requested a hearing, it was necessary in the interest of justice for the Assessing Officer to respond to this request, either by granting or denying it. The failure to respond prejudiced the petitioner. Therefore, the Court set aside Ext.P3 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration of the rectification petition, directing the petitioner to appear before the 1st respondent on March 10, 2022, at 11 a.m., for a hearing and appropriate orders. The issue of whether a hearing is mandatory in all rectification proceedings was not expressly left undecided but was addressed in the context of the specific request made by the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether Ext.P3, the order rejecting the rectification petition, is a non-speaking order and suffers from non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, thereby violating principles of natural justice, as argued by the petitioner? The petitioner contended that the order did not address the specific mistakes pointed out and merely reproduced statutory provisions without applying his mind. He also argued that the denial of a hearing, despite a specific request, rendered the order unjust. The revenue, represented by the Government Pleader, argued that a rectification petition is not an appeal or revision and is entertained only for errors apparent on the record. The revenue contended that the Assessing Officer correctly found no such error and that a hearing is not mandatory in rectification proceedings unless there is an enhancement of tax, which did not occur in this case.