Case Law Details
A.M. Abdulla Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)
The Kerala High Court recently adjudicated on a petition filed by A.M. Abdulla challenging the revisional order passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax under Section 56 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The order in question, dated 29.12.2022 (referred to as Ext.P5), annulled the assessment orders dated 12.02.2015 and 14.09.2017 issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Chavakkad, and directed a reassessment for the year 2012-13 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
Background: The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the revisional order on the grounds that the fresh assessment, as mandated by the order, had not yet been conducted. The delay in undertaking the reassessment process formed the crux of the petitioner’s grievance.
Court’s Analysis: Upon hearing the arguments presented by Mr. Harisankar V Menon, counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. Jasmin M M, the Government Pleader for the respondents, the Court evaluated the merits of the revisional order. The Court noted the absence of substantive grounds to invalidate the actions taken by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax. The revisional authority exercised its power under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, to ensure compliance with the statutory provisions, thereby mandating a fresh assessment based on the law.
Decision: The Kerala High Court, acknowledging the procedural propriety and jurisdictional competence of the revisional authority, found no justifiable reasons to interfere with the impugned order. The Court underscored that the matter had been remitted to the Assessing Authority for a de novo assessment, an action within the legal prerogatives of the revisional authority.
However, the Court recognized the petitioner’s concern regarding the delay in conducting the reassessment. Despite this, it observed that the petition was filed after a significant delay of over a year from the date of the impugned order. Considering these factors, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Conclusion: The High Court’s decision emphasizes the judiciary’s deference to the administrative and procedural mechanisms established under tax statutes. While the Court did not find grounds to quash the revisional order, it implicitly acknowledged the petitioner’s concern about the delay in reassessment. This judgment reaffirms the principle that judicial intervention in administrative decisions is warranted only when there is a clear violation of law or procedural impropriety. The dismissal, however, leaves open the avenue for the petitioner to seek redress through the appropriate statutory remedies available against the revisional order, thereby ensuring that the petitioner’s rights to contest the revisional authority’s decision are preserved.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
Heard Mr Harisankar V Menon, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms Jasmin M M, learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning Ext.P5 order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 29.12.2022 whereby the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, exercising the revisional power under Section 56 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act 2003, has cancelled the assessment orders dated 12.02.2015 and 14.09.2017 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Chavakkad and remitted the matter to the Assessing Authority to pass fresh assessment orders in accordance with the law for the year 2012-13 under the Central Sales Tax Act 1956.
3. Mr Harisankar V Menon, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that on remand, till date, fresh assessment order has not been passed.
4. This Court finds no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Joint Commissioner of State The matter has been remanded back to the Assessing Authority for passing fresh orders. The petitioner has approached this Court after a delay of more than a year.
4.1 Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. However, if the petitioner has any remedy against the said impugned order, he may resort to the statutory remedy as may be available to him.
Author Bio
