Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 52697
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
GOPINATH P, J
AA NUTS – Appellant
Versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER – Respondent
WP(C)/30541/2022
ADV. O. R. SREEJITH (SC), ADV. THUSHARA JAMES (SR GP)
The court reinforced the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice in administrative decisions affecting parties' rights.
Headnote:
Assessment - Taxation - Central Sales Tax Act, Kerala Value Added Tax Act - Sections Unspecified - The court analyzed the absence of proper notice and opportunity for the petitioner before assessment orders were issued, ultimately deciding to quash the assessments and remit the matters for proper hearing.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged various assessment orders completed under the Central Sales Tax Act and Kerala Value Added Tax Act, citing a lack of notice and a fair opportunity to be heard due to the closure of the business premises.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while the respondents claimed notices were properly served, the absence of actual awareness due to business closure warranted giving the petitioner another opportunity to present their case to the assessing authority.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was granted a fair hearing and the necessary notice before the assessment orders were made.
Ratio Decidendi: The principle of natural justice requires that parties must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before any adverse actions, including tax assessments, are imposed upon them.
Final Decision: The assessment orders were quashed, and the matters were remitted to the assessing authority for fresh consideration with the opportunity for the petitioner to be heard.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is common in all these cases. The petitioner is aggrieved by orders of assessment completed under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act and Kerala Value Added Tax Act for various assessment years. In W.P(C) No.30539/2022 the petitioner is aggrieved by the orders of assessment completed against the petitioner under the provisions of the for the assessment year 2015-2016. In W.P(C) No.30543/2022 the petitioner is aggrieved by assessments completed against the petitioner under the provisions of the for the assessment year 2014- 2015. In W.P(C) No.30541/2022 the petitioner is aggrieved by the assessment completed against the petitioner under the provisions of the Kerala Valued Added Tax Act for the assessment year 2013-2014. In W.P(C) No.30521/2022 the petitioner is aggrieved by assessment completed against the petitioner under the provisions of the for the assessment year 2014-2015. In W.P(C) No.30526/2022 the petitioner is aggrieved by assessment completed against the petitioner under the provisions of the for the assessment year 2013-2014. In W.P(C) No.30561/2022 the petitioner is aggrieved by assessment completed against the petitioner under the provisions of the for the assessment year 2015-2016.
2. The case of the petitioner is that prior to completing the assessments under the provisions of the KVAT Act and CST Act against the petitioner in respect of the assessment years mentioned above, no notice was served on the petitioner and all the assessments were completed without affording to the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. It is submitted that the business premises of the petitioner were closed and the petitioner was not aware of any proceedings initiated against the petitioner.
3. The learned Senior Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that the contention of the petitioner is clearly not acceptable. It is submitted that notices in respect of each of the assessments completed against the petitioner were given to the petitioner by affixture at the last known place of business as also at the house address of one of the partners and therefore, it could not be said that there is any failure to give notice. It is submitted that this is not a case of violation of the principles of natural justice and there is no rhyme or reason to interfere with the assessment orders in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no notice of the proceedings was given to the petitioner and also taking note of the submission that the petitioner was not aware of the proceedings as his entire business had collapsed and the business premises were closed, I think that one further opportunity can be given to the petitioner to have the matter adjudicated by the assessing authority.
5. Accordingly, orders of assessment for the various years mentioned above, which have been produced as Ext.P1 in each of these writ petitions, will stand quashed and the matters will stand remitted to the 1st respondent for completing the assessments, after affording to the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The petitioner shall mark appearance before the 1st respondent at
11.00 AM on 21.10.2022.
6. It is the specific case of the learned Senior Government Pleader that proper notices as required under law were given and since the assessment orders are being set aside purely as a matter of indulgence only with the intention of giving an opportunity to the petitioner for participating in the process of assessment, it is made clear that it will not be open to the petitioner to take any plea of limitation in the completion of assessments afresh, as directed in this judgment.
The writ petitions are disposed of as above.
Sd/- GOPINATH P.
JUDGE okb/
//True copy// P.S. to Judge APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3
