The case underscores the obligation of tax authorities to adhere to natural justice principles during assessment processes.

J U D G M E N T

Petitioner was an assessee under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (the Act). In terms of Exts.P3 and P4 notices, the escaped turnover of the petitioner for the years 2012-13 and 2013-14 was sought to be assessed by the competent authority under the Act. The petitioner sent Exts.P5 and P6 objections to the proposals made in Exts.P3 and P4 notices. On a consideration of Exts.P5 and P6 objections, the petitioner was issued revised notices. Exts.P9 and P10 are the notices containing the revised proposals. The petitioner was an assessee executing works on contract basis. During the relevant years, the petitioner got certain works executed through a sub-contractor. The main reason stated for the proposals made in Exts.P3 and P4 was that though the petitioner claimed deduction in respect of the sub-

contract amounts, they have not produced certificates in Form 20H from the sub-contractor. In fact, the petitioner produced along with Exts.P5 and P6 objections, Form 20H certificates obtained from the sub-contractor as well. The allegation against the petitioner in Exts.P9 and P10 revised notices was, however, that the Form 20H certificates produced by the petitioner were not attested in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. In the circumstances, immediately on receipt of Exts.P9 and P10 notices, the petitioner submitted Ext.P11 request for one month's time. According to the petitioner, time was sought in terms of Ext P11 request for the purpose of getting the Form 20H certificates attested in accordance with the Act and the Rules. It is stated that though time was sought, the assessments proposed were completed without affording further time to the petitioner, as per Exts.P1 and P2 orders. Exts.P1 and P2 orders are under challenge in the writ petition on the ground mainly that the same are vitiated for non-compliance of the principles of natural justice.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

3. It is seen that the petitioner had promptly responded to Exts.P3 and P4 notices issued by the assessing authority. Exts.P9 and P10 revised notices were issued since the documents produced by the petitioner were not in order. On receipt of Exts.P9 and P10 revised notices, the petitioner only sought a month's time. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on receipt of Ext.P9 and P10 revised notices, the petitioner could not trace out the sub-contractor; that only through the sub-

contractor, the petitioner could obtain the attestation required for the certificates and it is on account of the said reason that time was sought by the petitioner in terms of Ext.P11 request.

4. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that in a case of this nature, the assessing authority should have granted the request for time made by the petitioner in terms of Ext.P11 request. Instead, as pointed out by the petitioner, the impugned orders have been passed forthwith after Ext.P11 request. In the said view of the matter, I am in agreement with the case set up by the petitioner that Exts.P1 and P2 orders are vitiated for non-compliance of the principles of natural justice.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed, Exts.P1 and P2 orders are set aside and the assessing authority is directed to pass fresh orders on Exts.P9 and P10 revised notices, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner shall produce the documents and appear for hearing on 15.03.2018.