Chimera Industrial And Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)
The Kerala High Court considered a writ petition filed by Chimera Industrial And Development Pvt. Ltd., a private limited company engaged in manufacturing diesel dispensing units in Gujarat and registered under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act) and CST Act. The petitioner stated that it sold its existing business to another entity in 2018. For assessment year 2015-16, the assessing officer issued a notice under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act proposing additions concerning alleged purchase and sales suppression and discrepancies in stock transfer. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply, following which a revised notice was issued. Its authorised representatives appeared before the assessing officer and explained the discrepancies. A further notice was also issued during the hearing process, but the petitioner stated that no subsequent notice or assessment order was served.
On 03.12.2025, the petitioner received a revenue recovery notice through its registered email ID and learned that an assessment order had been passed. The petitioner applied for a certified copy of the order and obtained a copy independently, namely Ext.P10, dated 23.02.2021. It challenged the assessment order principally on the ground that it had not been given an adequate opportunity of hearing and that its reply in Ext.P4 had not been dealt with in the revised notice. It also contended that the assessment order had not been served upon it.
The High Court observed that Ext.P10 was an appealable order. Regarding the alleged denial of opportunity, the Court noted that Ext.P10 itself recorded that notices had been sent by registered post, to the registered email ID provided by the petitioner, and through WhatsApp to the mobile number furnished to the assessing officer. The order also recorded that the contact person had assured the assessing officer that the books of account would be produced but neither appeared nor produced them.
The Court held that the petitioner’s contention regarding non-consideration of its reply in Ext.P4 could also be raised in an appeal. Similarly, non-service of the assessment order, by itself, was not considered sufficient to entertain the challenge through a writ petition, particularly since the petitioner had obtained a copy of the order and had already applied for its certified copy.
Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to issue the certified copy of the assessment order pursuant to Ext.P9 within one week from receipt of the judgment. To enable the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedies and seek necessary interim orders, the Court directed that recovery proceedings based on the assessment order be kept in abeyance for one month.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The petitioner is a Private Ltd Company which was engaged in the manufacturing of diesel dispensing units in Gujarat. The petitioner was a registered dealer under the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act and CST Act. According to the petitioner, in the year 2018, the petitioner sold their existing business to another entity. Pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16, a notice under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act as evidenced by Ext.P3 was issued to the petitioner proposing to make additions alleging purchase and sales suppression, and also raising certain discrepancies in stock transfer. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 reply to the same.
2. Thereafter, a revised notice was issued as evidenced by Ext.P5. The authorized representatives of the petitioner appeared before the assessing officer and explained the discrepancies in the proposal made. Thereafter, a further notice was also issued as part of hearing of the matter, but, later, no notices were issued to the petitioner. Now the petitioner has been served with Ext.P7 revenue recovery notice on 03.12.2025, which was served through registered Email id of the petitioner.
3. According to the petitioner, only when Ext.P7 recovery notice was served upon the petitioner, it became aware that an order had been passed, based on Ext.P4 notice issued under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. Accordingly, the petitioner had applied for a certified copy of the assessment order, which is yet to be received. Ext.P10 is the copy of the assessment order, the petitioner could obtain, which is dated 23.02.2021. This writ petition is submitted in such circumstances, challenging Ext.P10 order of assessment.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader.
5. The specific contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that, Ext.P10 order was passed without providing a proper opportunity for being heard. Apart from the above, it was contended that, even though in response to the initial notice issued under Section 25(1) as evidenced by Ext.P3, the petitioner submitted a detailed objection in the form of Ext.P4 notice, and the same was also referred to in Ext.P5 revised notice, the contents of the explanation offered by the petitioner were not referred to in the revised notice. The further contention of the petitioner is that, the petitioner was never served with any order of assessment as well.
6. After considering all relevant aspects, I am of the view that, as far as Ext.P10 order is concerned, it is an appealable order. With regard to the contentions that the petitioner was not provided with an adequate opportunity to contest the matter, it is to be noted that, in Ext. P10 itself, the manner in which the notices were sent to the petitioner is clearly explained, which would indicate that, the notices were sent to registered post, as well as the registered Email id provided by the petitioner to the assessing officer. Apart from the above, it is also stated that, the notices were sent through Whatsapp to the mobile number provided to the assessing officer.
7. Thus, it is evident that, all the possible measures have been taken by the assessing officer to serve the notice. Moreover, it is also stated that the contact person assured the assessing officer that they will produce the books of account, but he neither appeared nor produced the books of account. Thus, going by Ext.P10, it can be seen that, it was in those circumstances the order was filed as above.
8. As regards the contention that the reply furnished by the petitioner in Ext.P4 was not dealt with, I am of the view that, it is also a matter that can be dealt with in the appeal. Similarly, one of the contentions raised by the petitioner is that the order was not served upon the petitioner. However, that by itself, cannot be a reason to entertain the challenge by way of a writ petition. This is particularly because, now the petitioner could obtain a copy of the order, but even though the certified copy is yet to be received. This would enable the petitioner to commence the process of the filing the appeal. The petitioner has already applied for the certified copy of the order. Therefore, the petitioner can file the appeal raising all the contentions as soon as the certified copy of the assessment order is received.
In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to issue the certified copy of the assessment order acting upon Ext.P9, so as to enable the petitioner to submit an appeal against Ext.P10 order. The certified copy shall be provided within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. To enable the petitioner to invoke the statutory remedies and to obtain necessary interim orders, the recovery proceedings based on the impounded assessment order shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month.
