M/S.K.I.Antony And Sons vs. The Sales Tax Officer-1

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.K.I.Antony and Sons, a dealer under the CST Act, faced an adverse assessment order. The appellate authority, in Ext.P2 dated 17.05.2017, remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, allowing the petitioner three weeks to produce relevant 'C' Forms before the assessing authority. However, the petitioner failed to produce these forms for approximately 18 months. Consequently, the assessing authority, in Ext.P3 dated 26.11.2018, restored the original adverse order. The petitioner then approached the assessing authority in January 2019, explaining that the 'C' Forms were misplaced by their auditor but later traced, and sought recall of Ext.P3 and a rehearing. The assessing authority refused, leading the petitioner to file this writ petition.

Held

The Court held that while the petitioner's conduct in delaying the production of 'C' Forms was not entirely blameless, constitutional courts exercising equity jurisdiction should be hesitant to let matters perish on technicalities, aiming for justice on adversarial contests rather than by default. The Court found no evidence of laches, mala fides, or other considerations that would bar equitable relief. Therefore, to serve the interest of justice, the Court decided to hear the matter on merits, acknowledging that the delayed approach must be compensated. The Court set aside Ext.P3 and remanded the matter to the assessing authority, directing that if the petitioner produces the relevant 'C' Forms within three weeks from the date of the order, the authority shall hear the matter on merits. The Writ Petition was allowed on the condition of the petitioner paying Rs. 5,000/- as costs to the Chief Minister's Distress Relief Fund.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessing authority was justified in refusing to recall its order (Ext.P3) and rehear the matter, despite the petitioner's explanation for the delay in producing 'C' Forms, thereby turning down the opportunity granted by the appellate authority (Ext.P2)? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the delay in producing the 'C' Forms was due to inadvertence by their auditor, and most forms were available online, with only three requiring physical submission. They argued that the assessing authority should have considered the online forms and not disallowed the entire claim. The petitioner urged the Court to take a lenient view, set aside Ext.P3, and direct a rehearing, as the mistake should not cost them significantly. Revenue's arguments: The learned Government Pleader argued that the petitioner had been indolent and an indolent litigant should not receive equitable consideration. She asserted that Ext.P3 was unassailable as it followed the appellate directions and that the petitioner's attempt to compel a revisit of the matter with belated production of documents was unjustified. Furthermore, she pointed out that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy and urged for dismissal of the petition.