Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J
WILSON THOMAS – Appellant
Versus
ASST COMMISSIONER (WORKS CONTRACT – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 10800/2016
Justice - Assessment - Kerala Value Added Tax Act - Sections Referenced - The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to the principles of natural justice, highlighting the requirement for adequate opportunity for filing responses and personal hearings before final decisions are made.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an assessment order under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, claiming insufficient opportunity to respond to the pre-assessment notice, thus alleging a breach of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the assessing authority acted hastily, denying the petitioner the proper time to prepare a response and attend a personal hearing, which constituted a violation of natural justice principles.
Issues: Whether the assessment order was valid given the lack of proper opportunity for the petitioner to respond and present their case.
Ratio Decidendi: Natural justice requires that parties have sufficient opportunity to respond to charges against them, which was not afforded in this case.
Final Decision: The court quashed the assessment order and directed a fresh assessment with proper opportunity for the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P7 order of assessment passed in relation to the petitioner for the assessment year 2010-11 under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act , hereinafter referred to as the KVAT Act. The grievance of the petitioner against Ext.P7 order is essentially that before passing Ext.P7 order he was not given an adequate opportunity to file his reply to the pre assessment notice as also an opportunity of personal hearing. It is therefore contended that Ext.P7 order is vitiated by a non-
compliance with the rules of natural justice.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I find from Ext.P7 order that on receipt of the pre assessment notice, the petitioner had approached the 1st respondent with a request for adjournment by one month so as to file a detailed reply and also for appearing for the personal hearing. As against the one month adjournment that was sought for, the assessing authority granted only two weeks and posted the matter for 11.12.2015. Immediately thereafter, on finding that the petitioner did not file the objection within the short time granted to him the 1st respondent proceeded to pass Ext.P7 order. On a perusal of Ext.P7 order, I am of the view that there was no necessity for the 1st respondent to proceed with such undue haste in completing the assessment in relation to the petitioner for the assessment year in question. I therefore, quash Ext.P7 order and direct the 1st respondent to complete the assessment in relation to the petitioner for the assessment year in question afresh, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. To enable the 1st respondent to do so, I direct the petitioner to appear before the 1st respondent at his office at 11 AM on 28.03.2016. It will be open to the petitioner to file his detailed objection in the matter before that date. The 1st respondent shall pass fresh orders as directed, within a month thereafter.
The writ petition is disposed as above.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
