Silverstone Rubber INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. State Of Kerala

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Silverstone Rubber India Pvt. Ltd., received a revised notice under Section 25(1) read with Section 25AA of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, on October 28, 2020, from the Deputy Commissioner (2nd respondent). This notice rejected the petitioner's self-assessment and proposed assessment to the best of the authority's judgment, inviting objections. The petitioner sought a 30-day adjournment by an application dated November 19, 2020. Subsequently, on January 12, 2021, the 2nd respondent finalized the assessment. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this final assessment order.

Held

The Court held that the authorities were expected to issue a notice of hearing after receiving the petitioner's application for adjournment. A perusal of the impugned order indicated that the request for adjournment was, in fact, accepted by the 2nd respondent. However, no subsequent notice of hearing was provided to the petitioner. Consequently, the Court found that the principles of natural justice were violated. The impugned order was quashed and set aside. The matter of assessment for the year 2014-2015 was remitted back to the 2nd respondent for fresh decision after granting the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner was directed to appear before the 2nd respondent on March 1, 2021, with relevant records, and the 2nd respondent was directed to decide the assessment proceedings within six weeks thereafter.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order, passed by the 2nd respondent, violates the principles of natural justice by failing to provide the petitioner with an opportunity of hearing after their request for adjournment was made and implicitly accepted. Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that they were not informed whether their request for adjournment was granted or denied, nor were they subsequently informed about any hearing date. Therefore, the final assessment order was passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice. Revenue's argument: The learned Government Pleader opposed the petition, drawing attention to the 2nd respondent's observation in the assessment order that after the lapse of 30 days, the petitioner neither applied for further adjournment for personal hearing nor filed their reply.