Southern Jwellery And Die Works vs. State Of Kerala

Facts

The petitioner, Southern Jewellery and Die Works, filed three writ petitions challenging orders (Ext.P4) issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment)-I and Deputy Commissioner (Assessment)-I, SGST Department, Thrissur. The petitioner contended that the impugned orders were passed without affording them an opportunity of being heard. Furthermore, in one petition, the petitioner claimed to have discontinued their business in 2013 and that the assessment officer had levied liability for goods they did not sell, even though their TIN was allotted to another dealer. The Court directed the respondents to obtain instructions on whether the petitioner was heard before the orders were issued.

Held

The Court, without delving into the merits of the rival contentions, set aside the impugned orders (Ext.P4) in all three writ petitions. The Court directed the 3rd respondent (Deputy Commissioner (Assessment)-I) to reconsider the entire matter. This reconsideration must include affording the petitioner a proper opportunity of being heard, either physically or through video conferencing, and allowing them to produce all relevant documents to substantiate their contentions, particularly their claim of having discontinued business in 2013 and surrendered their TIN. A fresh assessment order is to be passed for the assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, and 2015-2016. The Court explicitly stated that it had not considered any of the petitioner's contentions on their merits, leaving them open to be pursued before the 3rd respondent. The petitioner was directed to appear before the 3rd respondent on January 19, 2021, at 11:00 a.m. for further proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders (Ext.P4) were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically by failing to provide the petitioner with an opportunity of being heard, as contemplated under the relevant provisions of GST law? 2. Whether the assessment made by the respondent authorities is vitiated due to the petitioner having discontinued their business in 2013 and surrendered their TIN, and the liability being imposed for goods not sold by them? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned orders were passed without affording them a proper hearing, thus violating principles of natural justice. They also contended that they had ceased business operations in 2013 and surrendered their TIN, and therefore, could not be held liable for subsequent transactions or goods not sold by them. Revenue's arguments: The respondent revenue authorities, represented by the Government Pleader, submitted that while the impugned orders did not explicitly record that the petitioner was heard, the assessment was made based on valid inputs and materials. They expressed willingness to provide the petitioner with a hearing and allow them to produce all relevant documents, including proof of business discontinuation and TIN surrender.