K.R.S.Roofing System vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax (Assessment)

Held

The Court held that the assessment order (Ext.P5) could not be legally sustained. The Court found that while a pre-assessment notice dated February 12, 2019, was referenced in the assessment order, the order was passed ex parte on March 30, 2019. The Court noted the petitioner's submission that they had intimated their difficulties due to flood situations on September 1, 2018, and sought a reprieve. The Court was of the view that there was no urgency for the respondents to complete the assessment in such haste without hearing the petitioner, especially when the petitioner had already communicated their difficulties. Therefore, the Court quashed Ext.P5 and directed the 1st respondent to pass fresh orders after hearing the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to appear before the 1st respondent on December 5, 2019, and the 1st respondent was to pass fresh orders within one month thereafter.

Facts

The petitioner, K.R.S. Roofing System, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte assessment order (Ext.P5) dated March 30, 2019, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (Assessment) under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The petitioner's grievance was that the assessment order was passed without providing an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner contended that following floods in the State which affected their factory and production, they had informed the respondents on September 1, 2018, about their difficulties and sought a temporary reprieve from assessment proceedings. They argued that the assessment order was passed hastily without considering these peculiar circumstances.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated March 30, 2019 (Ext.P5), passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (Assessment), is vitiated by a non-compliance with the rules of natural justice, specifically by being passed ex parte without hearing the petitioner, contrary to Section 47 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed ex parte, violating the principles of natural justice. They further contended that they had previously communicated their difficulties due to flood situations on September 1, 2018, and sought a reprieve, but this was ignored. The assessment was completed in haste without considering their circumstances. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or State respondents.