Failure to comply with procedural requirements in a timely manner does not infringe upon the principles of natural justice.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer on 24.06.2016.

2. The assessment order was passed earlier, which was challenged by the petitioner by filing KVATA No.1839/2015 before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). The appellate authority having taken into consideration the factual and legal issues involved in the matter, directed the assessing authority to re-examine the issue by verifying the agreement to be produced by the appellant and allow the compounded rate claimed by the appellant, if found admissible. The appellant was directed to produce the agreement before the assessing authority within one month of the receipt of the notice.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P1 notice was served during the 1st week of February 2016. However, due to various reasons, the petitioner could not produce the agreement before the officer. The petitioner was served with notice dated 08.06.2016. He submitted a letter dated 17.06.2016 seeking for a further adjournment. It is stated in the letter that his accountant was on leave and he was engaged in the wedding arrangements of his only daughter. The assessing officer, however, did not find it as a genuine request and accordingly passed Ext.P2 order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was on account of a bona fide omission that the document was not produced within the specified time and that the petitioner should be given one more opportunity to produce the document and to avail of the compounding facility.

5. Heard the learned Government Pleader who submits that sufficient opportunity had already been granted to the petitioner and therefore, no modification is required to Ext.P2 order.

6. It is evident from the aforesaid facts as narrated that only a months' time was granted to the petitioner to produce copy of the agreement. The petitioner did not comply with the same after receiving Ext.P1 order by the 1st week of February 2016. Still, the assessing officer thought it necessary to issue a notice. Even after receipt of the notice, the petitioner without producing the same, had again sought for adjournment. The assessing officer had in the impugned order stated that the time required for producing the agreement was not even mentioned in the letter requesting for time. In the said circumstances, the officer had proceeded to pass the order sustaining the assessment already completed as per order dated 17.08.2015.

7. Taking into consideration the aforesaid factual situation, I don't think that there is any violation of principles of natural justice to enable the petitioner to have a further opportunity. It shall be open for the petitioner to prefer an appropriate appeal, if so advised.

With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed.