Back
2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 6138
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J
PAUL P PAUL – Appellant
Versus
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 30320/2017
The necessity of providing access to documents for fair hearings in tax assessments is crucial to uphold the principles of natural justice.
Headnote:
Judicial Review - Writ Petitions - WP(C) 30320 of 2017, WP(C) 32331 of 2017 - The court quashed an assessment order and directed the authority to reconsider the case after providing necessary documents and hearing the petitioner, emphasizing fair procedure and due process.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners sought copies of tax returns and sales details to respond to a pre-assessment notice. The assessing officer issued an assessment order without providing these details, leading to the challenge in court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the assessment order was invalid due to lack of due process and the right to be heard. It quashed the assessment order and mandated a fresh hearing with the newly provided documents.
Issues: Whether the assessment order was valid given the failure to provide necessary documents to the petitioners for an effective response.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that procedural fairness necessitates providing all relevant information to a taxpayer, affirming their right to be heard before assessments are finalized.
Final Decision: The assessment order was quashed and the case was remanded for fresh determination.
JUDGMENT
As both these writ petitions involve a common issue, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed by this Common judgment.
2. WP(C) 30320 of 2017 was preferred by the petitioners seeking a direction to the assessing authority to furnish the petitioners with copies of printouts of returns together with purchase/sales details, so as to enable the petitioners to file an effective reply to the pre-assessment notice that was served on them. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the assessing officer proceeded to pass an assessment order without furnishing the details sought for by the petitioners and the said assessment order is impugned as Ext.P4 in WP(C) No.32331 of 2017. During the pendency of these cases, and pursuant to an interim direction in WP(C) No.30320 of 2017, the petitioners in the said writ petition have subsequently obtained all the documents that they had sought for from the assessing authority. The limited prayer at this stage is for quashing Ext.P4 assessment order, that is impugned in WP(C)
No.32331 of 2017, and for a direction to the assessing authority to consider the matter afresh, after perusing the objections filed by the petitioners, based on the documents which have since been furnished to them by the assessing authority.
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
4. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I dispose WP (C) No.32331 of 2017 by quashing Ext.P4 impugned order in the said writ petition and directing the respondent assessing authority to pass fresh orders in lieu of Ext.P4, after hearing the petitioner and after considering the objections of the petitioner based on the documents subsequently furnished to him. To enable the respondent assessing officer to do so, I direct the petitioner to appear before the respondent at his office at 11 AM on 15.11.2017. The respondent shall pass fresh orders as directed within a period of one month thereafter.
In the light of the directions issued in respect of WP(C)
No.32331 of 2017, WP(C) No.30320 of 2017 is closed as infructuous.
