Case Law Details
Karvy Innotech Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner (ASSMT) SGST Department (Kerala High Court)
While considering the question whether the petitioner was deprived of an opportunity of hearing, this Court bears in mind that, by Ext.P7, petitioner had sought only for two week’s time. By Ext.P9 he had only sought for one more week’s time and by Ext.P10 he sought for a further two weeks time. Thus practically every request for adjournment was granted with a specific rider that ‘no further adjournment will be given’. In spite of the above, further opportunities were granted to the petitioner, but he failed to avail the same. Admittedly, as evident from the impugned assessment order, even on 01.03.2021, petitioner had failed to file any objection and even failed to appear for a hearing. As a result of the failure of the petitioner to appear for the hearings as well as the failure to file any objection, the respondent could not have done anything other than issuing an order of assessment, as proposed in the notice. It is in the above circumstances that Ext.P11 came to be issued.
On a consideration of the sequence of events that culminated in Ext.P11 assessment order, I am of the considered view that petitioner was granted sufficient opportunity to contest the assessment proceedings and his failure to do so cannot be regarded as a violation of the principles of natural justice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
