Back
2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 17664
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J
HARIS K V – Appellant
Versus
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER APPEALS – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 36148/2016
Ensuring procedural fairness by allowing a party ample opportunity to comply with assessment directives is essential in tax proceedings.
Headnote:
Assessment - Writ Petition - Assessment Proceedings - Ext.P1, Ext.P2, and Ext.P3 - The court set aside the order confirming earlier assessment pending submission of documents as per the appellate order, emphasizing fair opportunity to comply with procedural requirements.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the confirmation of an earlier assessment despite being allowed by an appellate order to submit further evidence regarding business stoppage and account records, which the assessing officer had yet to receive.
Finding of the Court:
The court found merit in granting the petitioner another opportunity to present his case, emphasizing the importance of following due process and allowing for procedural fairness.
Issues: Whether the assessing authority acted appropriately in confirming the assessment without considering the petitioner's application for extension of time.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that adherence to procedural fairness is vital, and parties should be given reasonable opportunity to comply with directives from appellate authorities.
Final Decision: The court set aside the earlier assessment order and provided the petitioner an opportunity to present necessary documents.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner challenges Ext.P3 by which earlier assessment had been finalised despite the appellate order, Ext.P1 dated 25/7/2016. Petitioner submits that by Ext.P1 appellate order, earlier assessment was set aside and the petitioner was permitted to produce evidence regrading stoppage of business and also to produce a complete books of accounts for the financial year 2009-10 within a period of thirty days. Petitioner submits that when he approached the assessing authority, the said officer was on leave and he was informed that notice will be issued when the assessing officer rejoins office. However, in the meantime, time specified by the appellate authority was over and accordingly petitioner submitted Ext.P2, an application on 1/11/2016 for extension of time. In the meantime, petitioner was served with Ext.P3 dated 27/10/2016 by which it was informed that since the petitioner did not comply with the directions issued in Ext.P1, the earlier order of assessment had been confirmed in terms with the appellate order. Learned counsel for the petitioner W.P(C) No.36148/16 submits that there is a genuine reason for seeking extension of time and the said application is still pending consideration, in which event, the assessing authority ought to have passed an order.
2. Having regard to the factual aspects involved in the matter, I am of the view that to get the benefit of Ext.P1 order, it would be appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to submit his documents and other evidence to substantiate his contention.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as under:-
(i) Ext.P3 is set aside.
(ii) Petitioner shall appear before the assessing officer on
5/12/2016 at 11.00 a.m and produce all the necessary records as contemplated in Ext.P1 order of the appellate authority.
(iii) On receipt of the same, the assessing officer shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
(iv) If the petitioner does not avail of the aforesaid opportunity, he will not be entitled to the benefit of this judgment.
