Case Law Details
Vikas A Shah Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)
Introduction: The case of Vikas A Shah vs State Tax Officer before the Kerala High Court revolves around the continuation of GST assessment proceedings against the deceased mother of the appellant. The court’s direction for a fresh assessment order is pivotal in ensuring procedural fairness and adherence to legal principles.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Background: The appellant, Vikas A Shah, challenged the assessment orders passed by the State Tax Officer against his deceased mother for the financial years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019. The late Vasanti Anil Kumar Shah operated a proprietorship concern named “International Agencies” engaged in copra and allied oil products business.
2. Initiation of Proceedings: Despite objections raised by the appellant regarding the continuation of assessment proceedings in his deceased mother’s name, the State Tax Officer proceeded with the assessment and passed the impugned orders. The appellant argued that he did not inherit his mother’s business and started his own venture with a different registered address.
3. Court Intervention: The learned Single Judge found that while the appellant succeeded the business of his mother, procedural irregularities marred the assessment proceedings. Considering the appellant’s inability to participate and the ex parte nature of the assessment, the court set aside the orders and directed the assessing officer to conduct a fresh assessment after hearing the appellant, with a caveat on the question of limitation.
4. Appellate Proceedings: The appellant, dissatisfied with the judgment, appealed before the Kerala High Court, asserting that he never admitted to inheriting his mother’s business. He emphasized the distinction between his business and his mother’s, despite their similar names. The court disposed of the writ appeal, allowing the appellant to present his case before the assessing officer without any preconceived notions from the previous judgment.
Conclusion: The Kerala High Court’s directive for a fresh assessment in the case of Vikas A Shah vs State Tax Officer highlights the significance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal principles in GST assessment proceedings, particularly concerning deceased assessees. By allowing the appellant an opportunity to present his case without preconceptions, the court ensures justice and upholds the rule of law. This ruling serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the rights of individuals and maintaining integrity in administrative proceedings.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The appellant preferred the writ petition challenging the assessment orders passed by the 1st respondent against his deceased mother for the financial years 2017-2018 and 2018- 2019.
2. The appellant’s mother, the late Vasanti Anil Kumar Shah, was running a proprietorship concern under the name and style “International Agencies”, which was engaged in the business of copra and other allied oil products. It was registered under the provisions of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017. The appellant’s mother passed away on 2/12/2018. On her death, the father of the appellant, Sri. Anil Kumar Shah was designated as the authorised signatory for the closure activities of the business held by the appellant’s mother. He also passed away on 21/2/2021.
According to the appellant, the 1st respondent initiated assessment proceedings under the GST Act against the mother of the appellant for the period July 2017 to March 2018, and to that end, Ext.P4 show cause notice was issued in the name of the deceased mother of the appellant. It is alleged that in spite of the objection raised by the appellant that the assessment proceedings cannot be continued in the name of his deceased mother, the 1st respondent concluded the assessment proceedings and passed the impugned orders. The learned Single Judge found that the appellant had succeeded the business of his mother. However, considering the fact that the appellant could not participate in the assessment proceedings and the impugned assessment orders were passed ex parte, they were set aside, and the assessing officer was directed to pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with the law after hearing the appellant with a rider that the appellant shall not raise the question of limitation. It is challenging the said judgment; the appellant is before us.
3. We have heard Sri.Srikanth Thamban, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.V.K.Shamsudheen, the learned Senior Government Pleader.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge proceeded to dispose of the writ petition on the assumption that the appellant had admitted that he had inherited his mother’s business. According to the learned counsel, the appellant had never admitted that he succeeded the business of his mother. It is his case that after the death of his mother, he started his own business in the name of International Agencies with a different registered address. In short, the case set up by the appellant is that his business and his mother’s business are two different businesses, though their names are similar. The appellant can very well take up his said plea regarding the non-inheritance of his mother’s business as well as the plea of limitation before the assessing officer. The assessing officer shall consider those pleas untrammelled by any observations in the impugned judgment and pass fresh orders in accordance with the law after hearing the appellant.
Writ appeal is disposed of as above.