Back
2015 Supreme(Online)(KER) 8338
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K VINOD CHANDRAN, J
V.PRADEEP KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
SECY.OF LABOUR&REHABILITATION DEPT.& ORS – Respondent
WP(C)/2172/2008
Sri.Cibi Thomas, Sri.T.J.Michael, Sri.Naveen T.
Failure to contest assessment and lack of substantive evidence against authority's findings led to dismissal of the petition.
Headnote:
Assessment - Taxation - - The court upheld the final determination order and concluded that the petitioner had the opportunity to present their case but failed to do so, thus confirming the authority's findings and providing a payment plan.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged assessment orders related to tax contributions for specified vehicles, claiming lack of proper notice and inquiry by the authority, despite evidence of notice issued.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no merit in the petitioner's claims, affirming that the petitioner did not appear for assessments although notices were issued. The court also noted the inconsistency in the vehicle ownership timeline presented by the petitioner.
Issues: Whether the assessment orders were valid considering the petitioner's contentions regarding notice and proper inquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity for the petitioner to appear and contest the assessments; failure to do so legitimized the authority's determinations.
Final Decision: Writ petition dismissed with an installment payment plan for dues.
JUDGMENT
1.Petitioner has challenged the final determination order at Exts.P6 and P7, which are affirmed in appeal at Ext.P8. Petitioner's contention is that, the assessment has been made on the deposition of one Gopalakrishnan, who is said to have been employed under the petitioner. There is no enquiry conducted by the assessing authority, is the contention raised. At the outset, it is to be noticed that, the petitioner does not have a case that, he was not issued with notice. A reading of Exts.P6 and P7 would indicate that, despite notice, the petitioner did not appear before the assessing authority.
2.Ext.P6 was with respect to the period 1998-2002, specifically with respect to three vehicles, KL-13/A 462, KL-13/H 5842 and KL-13/D 3167. Petitioner, on the basis of Ext.P2, would take a contention that, KL-13/A 462 was sold by the petitioner. However, the registration, even according to Ext.P2, has been changed only on 17.12.2001 and the period assessed in Ext.P6, is prior to such sale. With respect to Ext.P7, that was for the period 2002-03 and definitely, the petitioner could not have been assessed for the vehicle, KL-13/A 462, which is transferred in 2001, as per Ext.P2.
3.However, despite the three vehicles being mentioned in both the orders, only one employee is seen assessed for the various periods. Hence, the vehicles definitely would have been in the ownership of the petitioner for different periods and the very same person would have been employed in all the said vehicles.
4.Petitioner has an additional contention with respect to Exts.P10 and P12, which are stated to be motor cycles. However, the vehicles indicated therein, having registration No.KRD 4062 and KL-13/F 6562, were only mentioned in the determination orders as belonging to the petitioner. No assessment as such was carried out with respect to the said vehicles. In such circumstances, Exts.P10 and P12 would be of no consequence to consider the sustainability of the determination order. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the determination order nor the appellate order. Writ petition would stand dismissed.
5.However, on the petitioner approaching the authorities for instalments, the petitioner shall be granted time to remit the welfare fund contribution in six equal monthly instalments. The authority shall quantify the dues as on 25.2.2015 and issue a statement of accounts, in accordance with which the instalments shall be paid. The 1st instalment shall be paid on or before 1.3.2015 and thereafter; the due date of instalments falling on the 1st of each succeeding month. If default is committed in two consecutive instalments, then the recovery proceedings shall revive and continue. On the satisfaction of the dues as per the statement, the authority shall give a statement of the future interest from 25.2.2015 and the same shall be settled as the 7th instalment. While calculating the amounts outstanding, the amount already remitted by the petitioner shall be given credit to.
Writ petition is disposed off. K. Vinod Chandran, Judge.
sl.
