Chandran P.R. vs. The Commercial Tax Officer (Works Contract)

Facts

The petitioner, Chandran P.R., challenged an order (Ext.P6) from the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting his appeal for failing to cure defects. The defect was the non-production of the original demand notice with the appeal memorandum. The case originates from proceedings under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The petitioner's goods were detained, security was remitted, and later penalty was imposed, with the security adjusted towards it. An assessment order and demand notice were purportedly issued but returned unserved. The petitioner obtained a certified copy of the assessment order and filed an appeal based on it, but could not produce the original or a certified copy of the demand notice.

Held

The Court held that the original assessment order returned unserved with the endorsement 'not known' indicated that the petitioner was not initially served with either the original order or the original demand notice. While a certified copy of the assessment order was issued, there was no record of the petitioner being served with the original or a certified copy of the demand notice. The petitioner's application for a certified copy of the demand notice (Ext.P5) was pending. Therefore, the failure to produce the original demand notice with the appeal memorandum could not be treated as a curable defect. The rejection of the appeal on this ground was found to be incorrect and against the law. The Court set aside the appellate order and directed the respondent to issue the certified copy of the demand notice within ten days. Upon receipt, the petitioner was to produce it before the appellate authority within two weeks, who would then re-admit the appeal and consider it on merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner was properly served with the original assessment order and demand notice, or a certified copy thereof, under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. 2. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's appeal by the appellate authority for failure to produce the original demand notice was justified. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the original assessment order and demand notice were never served as he was out of the country. He received only a certified copy of the assessment order, not the demand notice. The failure to produce the demand notice was not his fault but due to non-service of the original or certified copy. Revenue's arguments: The Government Pleader argued that both the original assessment order and demand notice were issued but returned as 'not known'. The petitioner was subsequently served with the original demand notice along with the certified copy of the assessment order when he applied for it. The revenue asserted no error in service by the assessing officer.