Jose Kunjappa vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Jose Kunjappa, proprietor of Little Flower Bookstall, challenged two notices, Ext.P1 and Ext.P2, issued by the State Tax Officer. Ext.P1, a notice under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act, 2003, dated March 1, 2019, required the petitioner to appear on February 15, 2019. The petitioner received this notice on March 7, 2019. Ext.P2, an order dated March 18, 2019, was passed by the respondent. The petitioner contended that Ext.P1 contained a contradictory date of appearance and that Ext.P2 was passed before the expiry of the 15-day period granted in Ext.P1, violating principles of natural justice. The respondent argued that the petitioner received Ext.P1 on March 7, 2019, and failed to file a reply by March 18, 2019, suggesting the objection was taken for convenience.

Held

The Court held that Ext.P2 is illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable. Even assuming the date of hearing mentioned in Ext.P1 (February 15, 2019) was a typographical or human error, the passing of the order Ext.P2 within fifteen days from March 7, 2019 (the date of acknowledgement of Ext.P1 by the petitioner) was improper. The respondent ought to have waited for the full fifteen-day period before making a decision. Consequently, Ext.P2 was set aside. The Court directed the petitioner to appear before the respondent on June 18, 2019, with a copy of the judgment, along with their reply and supporting documents. The respondent was directed to provide a date for hearing and complete the assessment expeditiously. The issue of whether the initial date in Ext.P1 was a genuine error or not was not the primary focus, but the subsequent action of passing Ext.P2 prematurely was deemed illegal.

Key Issues

1. Whether Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 are illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice, specifically concerning the notice period and the date of hearing, under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act, 2003? The petitioner argued that Ext.P1, dated March 1, 2019, cited a hearing date of February 15, 2019, which was prior to the date of issuance and also prior to the date the petitioner received the notice on March 7, 2019. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that Ext.P2, dated March 18, 2019, was passed before the expiry of the 15-day period from the date of receipt of Ext.P1, thus denying adequate opportunity to respond. The petitioner relied on the principles of natural justice. The respondent argued that the petitioner received Ext.P1 on March 7, 2019, and did not file a reply by March 18, 2019. The respondent contended that the objection regarding the notice period was raised for convenience and lacked substantive merit, praying for the dismissal of the writ petition.