IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 25^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 5TH MAGHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 24913 OF 2021 PETITIONER:

M/S.KARVY INNOTECH LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS HCL SERVICES LTD), MIDLAND AREENA, 84B, MAROTTICHUVAD JN., EDAPPALLY, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MR.ABHISHEK VAISHYA BY ADVS.

SRI.A.KUMAR SRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR SMT.G.MINI(1748)

SRI.P.S.SREE PRASAD SRI.JOB ABRAHAM SRI.AJAY V.ANAND RESPONDENT:

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(ASSMT)

SGST DEPARTMENT, SPECIAL CIRCLE-111, ERNAKULAM-682 015.

DR.THUSHARA JAMES, SR. GOVT. PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2022, THE COURT ON 25.01.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. --------------------------------

W.P.(C) No.24913 of 2021 --------------------------------

Dated this the 25^th day of January, 2022

JUDGMENT

Petitioner assails an order of assessment issued against it for the assessment year 2016-17 under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, 'KVAT Act'). The grievance of the petitioner arises from the impugned order having allegedly been rendered, without any hearing. Petitioner contended that the impugned order is issued without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice, since, an effective opportunity of hearing was not granted to the petitioner apart from failing to consider the reply filed initially to a notice under section 25(1) of the KVAT Act.

2. Petitioner is a public limited company engaged in the business of various IT related services. For the assessment year 2016-17, it had filed its annual return on 31.05.2017. Thereafter, a notice dated 10.04.2018 issued under section 25(1) of the KVAT Act was served on the petitioner, alleging various irregularities. A reply notice was filed by the petitioner on 08.05.2018. The total escaped turnover proposed by the assessing officer as per notice dated 10.4.2018 was Rs.6,95,10,864/-. Petitioner pleads that subsequent to the reply to the notice dated 10.04.2018, no communication was received thereafter and that they assumed the matter to have been closed. However, Ext.P5 notice dated 05.01.2021 was received by the petitioner for the same assessment year, issued under section 25(1) of the KVAT Act, wherein, the total escaped turnover was proposed to be Rs.29,32,47,628/-.

3. Pursuant to the aforesaid notice, petitioner responded by e-mail dated 25.01.2021, requesting an additional time of two weeks for submitting the information and also sought an opportunity for hearing before any orders are passed. By communication dated 27.01.2021, produced as Ext.P8, the respondent adjourned the proceeding to 02.02.2021 with an assertion that 'no further adjournment will be granted’. Presumably, there was no appearance on 02.02.2021. However, by Ext.P9 dated 03.02.2021, petitioner sought an additional time of one more week, for submitting its response and again sought an opportunity of hearing. Though the documents produced along with the writ petition do not show any adjournment on 02.02.2021, the communication produced as Ext.P10 reveals that the assessing officer must have granted a further adjournment. Again petitioner requested additional time of two weeks through the latter part of Ext.P10. In the initial part of Ext.P10, there is a communication issued by the respondent on

26.02.2021 adjourning the case to 01.03.2021.

4. Sri.A.Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is subjected to great prejudice since sufficient opportunity was not granted. It was also argued that the entire affairs of the petitioner, especially those relating to the taxation matters were being handled by the corporate office of the petitioner at Uttar Pradesh and due to the surge in Covid cases, there were difficulties for the petitioner to collate the data for replying to the notices issued by the respondent, which was the reason why the adjournments were sought for. Learned counsel furthe