The assessment order validity hinges on procedural compliance and the availability of alternative remedies in tax disputes.

JUDGMENT

The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P8 order of assessment passed in relation to the petitioner, for the assessment year 2014-15. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is essentially that while passing Ext.P8 order, the assessing officer did not take note of the fact that the petitioner had effected a sale of the goods, that was shown as closing stock as on 31.03.2014, at discounted values, which fact was also returned to the department by the petitioner. It is stated that Ext.P8 order is vitiated by patent non-application of mind and therefore that to be qushed by this Court.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I note from Ext.P8 order that a notice dated 07.07.2015 was issued to the petitioner, but the notice was then returned by the postal authority, stating that the addressee has left India. The notice was thereafter posted on the last known address of the petitioner and it was only thereafter that the 1st respondent proceeded to pass Ext.P8 assessment order dated 27.07.2015. The petitioner, on account of his absence from India, did not have notice of even Ext.P8 order, till 25.01.2016, when he is stated to have obtained a copy of the order, after making enquiries with the department and when confronted with the revenue recovery proceedings. Inasmuch as the department cannot be faulted for the predicament of the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner should be relegated to his alternative remedy of preferring an appeal before the appellate authority under the KVAT Act , since the dispute urged on behalf of the petitioner is now purely factual and something that has to be considered with a reference to the returns stated to have been filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, I dismiss the writ petition in its challenge against Ext.P8 order and relegate the petitioner to his alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the appellate authority, under the KVAT Act , against Ext.P8 order. Taking note of the submission of counsel for the petitioner that recovery steps are now initiated to recover the amounts confirmed against the petitioner through the issuance of Ext.P7 notice, I direct that recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7 notice shall be kept in abeyance for a period one month, so as to enable the petitioner to pursue his alternative remedy before the appellate authority, under the KVAT Act . Needless to say, that it will be open to the petitioner to raise all legal contentions against Ext.P8 order in the appeal to be filed before the appellate authority.