M/S.Malabar Institute Of Medical Science vs. Asst. Commissioner, Spl. Circle-I, SGST Department

Facts

The appellant, M/s. Malabar Institute of Medical Science, challenged revised assessments finalized under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act) for the years 2011-12 to 2015-16. The writ petitions before the Single Judge were filed against the orders of assessment passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Special Circle-I, SGST Department, Kozhikode. The Single Judge found that the impugned proceedings were finalized without affording the appellant an opportunity for a personal hearing after they filed objections to the proposal notices. Consequently, the Single Judge set aside the assessments and directed the Assessing Authority to reconsider the matter after granting a personal hearing, with a timeline for completion. The appellant filed these writ appeals against the common judgment of the Single Judge.

Held

The Court held that the impugned orders of assessment were set aside by the learned Single Judge on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the lack of a personal hearing. The question of whether any assessment is to be made against the appellant primarily needs to be decided by the Assessing Authority after affording an opportunity of personal hearing, as directed. The Court found no reason to interfere with the Single Judge's judgment. The Court clarified that the direction to complete the assessment should not be taken as a positive direction to re-open and make a fresh assessment, but rather to decide the matter on its merits after considering objections, documents, and settled legal positions. The Court also directed that the appellant be afforded a further opportunity of hearing, and the Assessing Authority should not pass orders based on the hearing already conducted on 21.08.2019. The matter was to be posted for further hearing at the earliest, and orders were to be passed thereafter.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the grounds raised by the appellant against the sustainability of the impugned orders of assessment on their merits, rather than remanding the matter for a fresh personal hearing? (Question of law) Contentions of the Appellant: The appellant argued that the Single Judge should have adjudicated the merits of the assessment orders. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had already appeared before the Assessing Authority on 21.08.2019, and a hearing was conducted, but contended that the authority should not pass orders based on that hearing. They sought a further opportunity for hearing. Contentions of the Revenue: The learned Government Pleader for the respondents contended that the writ petitions should not be entertained on the merits of the assessment orders because the appellant has an effective remedy of statutory appeals available against those orders.