Poljo Agents And Distributors Mullakad vs. The State Of Kerala

Facts

The petitioner, Poljo Agents and Distributors Mullakad, challenged an order dated March 25, 2019 (Ext.P5) passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (Assessment), Thrissur. The petitioner contended that the order was illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. Specifically, the petitioner argued that after submitting a reply dated March 20, 2019 (Ext.P3) to the second respondent, no further opportunity of hearing was provided before the penalty order was issued on March 25, 2019. The petitioner asserted that this denial of a reasonable opportunity to be heard before an adverse order was passed, particularly before a penalty was levied, constituted a violation of fair procedure.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order (Ext.P5) dated March 25, 2019, was violative of the principles of natural justice. The Court found that the petitioner was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the penalty order was passed. The short period between the petitioner's reply dated March 20, 2019, and the impugned order dated March 25, 2019, indicated a failure to comply with the basic requirement of affording a fair hearing. Consequently, the Court set aside Ext.P5 on this ground. The matters were remitted to the second respondent for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law. The petitioner was directed to appear before the second respondent on July 15, 2019, and the proceedings were to be completed on or before August 10, 2019.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated March 25, 2019 (Ext.P5) passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (Assessment) is illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice, specifically concerning the denial of a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the order Ext.P5 was vitiated by illegality and a violation of natural justice because no opportunity of hearing was granted after they submitted their reply (Ext.P3) on March 20, 2019, and the impugned order was dated March 25, 2019. They contended that the short time gap between their reply and the order demonstrated a denial of fair procedure, which is a mandatory requirement before imposing a penalty. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment records that the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents accepted notice. No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue in the provided text.