Case Law Details

Case Name : Micro Tech System Vs Assistant Commissioner (Kerala High Court)
Appeal Number : WP(C).No. 7406 of 2018
Date of Judgement/Order : 14/03/2018
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All High Courts (6292) Kerala High Court (354)

Micro Tech System Vs Assistant Commissioner, State Goods & Service Taxes (Kerala High Court)

Petitioner was an assessee under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (‘the Act’). The escaped turnover of the petitioner for the period 2011-’12 and 2013-’14 was sought to be assessed by the assessing authority invoking the powers under section 25(1) of the Act by issuing Exts.P1 and P1(a) notices. The case of the petitioner is that on receipt of Exts.P1 and P1(a) notices, the petitioner preferred Exts.P2 and P2(a) requests on 30.12.2012 seeking one month’s time. It is alleged that without giving any further intimation in the matter, the proceedings have been completed on 2.2.2018 by assessing the petitioner as proposed in the notices. Exts.P3 and P3(a) are the orders issued in this connection by the assessing authority. Exts.P3 and P3(a) orders are under challenge in this writ petition on the ground that the same are vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the record.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

3. The learned Government Pleader contended that the petitioner sought only one month’s time to raise objections against the show cause notices and as such, they should have filed objections against the notices within one month from 30.12.2012, and since they have not raised objections against the notices even after the expiry of one month, the assessments have been completed as proposed in the notices on 2.2.2018. The learned Government Pleader, however, conceded that no communication has been given to the petitioner on the adjournment request made by them. In the absence of any communication on the request made by the petitioner, according to me, the assessing authority should not have completed the assessments, without a further notice to the petitioner. In so far as the said course was not adopted by the assessing authority, I am in agreement with the case set up by the petitioner that Exts.P3 and P3(a) orders are vitiated for non compliance of the principles of natural justice.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Exts.P3 and P3(a) orders are set aside and the assessing authority is directed to complete the assessments pursuant to Exts.P1 and P1(a) notices afresh, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner shall appear for the hearing on 2.4.2018 and file objections, if any, against the proposal before the said date.

Download Judgment/Order

More Under Goods and Services Tax

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

January 2021