Back
2013 Supreme(Online)(KER) 41460
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
V.CHITAMBARESH, J
M/S M D MINERAL TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD – Appellant
Versus
COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WC), ERNAKULAM – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 10616/2013
The court emphasized that adequacy of hearing in assessment procedures under taxation can be evaluated through statutory appeals.
Headnote:
Taxation - Writ Petition - Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003; Central Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections relate to assessment procedures and opportunity for hearing.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged assessment orders under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act, claiming lack of personal hearing after submitting a reply.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged that the petitioner had submitted a detailed reply and was heard but deemed that any deficiencies in opportunity could be addressed in statutory appeals.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was granted adequate opportunity for a personal hearing concerning the assessment orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the matter regarding adequate opportunity for personal hearing is best suited for resolution in the statutory appeals process.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition is disposed of without prejudice to the petitioner's right to file statutory appeals.
J U D G M E N T
Exts.P5 and P5(a) orders of assessment passed under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act , 2003 and Central Sales Tax Act , 1957 are under challenge. The main ground urged in the writ petition is that no personal opportunity was granted to the petitioner after the submission of the reply statement. 2. The Government Pleader on instructions submits that the petitioner has filed a detailed reply on 6.2.2013. It is also asserted that the representative of the petitioner heard by the assessing authority on 26.2.2013. It is discernible from Ext.P5 notice that a reply was submitted on 6.2.2013 and that the representative of the petitioner was heard on 26.2.2013. Whether the opportunity so extended was sufficient or not could be better adjudicated in appropriate statutory appeals. 3. I dispose of the Writ Petition without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file statutory appeals against Exts.P5 and P5(a) orders of assessment. The fact that the Writ Petition was pending in this Court can be taken note of by the W.P.(C) No.10616/2013 appellate authority in the matter of condonation of delay. The appeals if filed against Exts.P5 and P5(a) orders shall be dealt with by the appellate authority without delay.
The Writ Petition is disposed of.
V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.
nj.
