Sreeja vs. State Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's contention that the hearing notice was not effectively served at the indicated address held force, especially since the revised assessment order itself was received by the petitioner at the same address. The Court found that the interim stay granted earlier did not benefit either party. To serve the interests of justice, the Court decided to quash the impugned revised assessment order (Ext.P4) on the grounds of non-compliance with natural justice. The Court directed the first respondent (State Tax Officer) to pass fresh orders of assessment in lieu of Ext.P4, after providing the petitioner with an opportunity to be heard. The petitioner was directed to appear before the first respondent on a specified date, and the respondent was to pass fresh orders within one month thereafter. The issue of the merits of the assessment itself was left undecided as the order was quashed on procedural grounds.

Facts

The petitioner, Sreeja, proprietor of M/s. Future Marketing and Systems, filed a writ petition challenging a revised assessment order (Ext.P4) passed under the Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act. The petitioner contended that the order was passed in violation of natural justice principles as she was not afforded a hearing. The State Tax Officer had sent a hearing notice to the petitioner's address, which was returned with the endorsement "no such addressee." However, the revised assessment order itself, served at the same address, was received by the petitioner. The Court noted that an interim stay of further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 was granted and continued to be in force.

Key Issues

1. Whether the revised assessment order (Ext.P4) passed under the KVAT Act is vitiated by a violation of the principles of natural justice due to the alleged non-service of the hearing notice on the petitioner? The petitioner argued that the hearing notice was not effectively served at her address, as evidenced by the "no such addressee" endorsement, and therefore, the subsequent assessment order passed without a hearing is invalid. The State contended that a hearing notice was sent to the address provided by the petitioner, and the return of the notice indicates an issue with the address itself, not a failure in service by the department. The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the State regarding specific provisions of the KVAT Act, but rather focuses on the procedural aspect of notice service.