Back
2015 Supreme(Online)(KER) 38623
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, J
JOSEPH P P – Appellant
Versus
COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 29499/2014
A valid notice must be served for tax assessments to be lawful, ensuring the taxpayer's right to contest.
Headnote:
Legality - Tax Assessment - KGST Act - Section 24(1), Section 47(6) - The court emphasized the requirement for proper notice to be served before proceeding with penalty assessments and highlighted the necessity for opportunity to contest contentions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order under Section 24(1) of the KGST Act, arguing that his workshop had been closed and no notice was served regarding the assessment, thereby raising issues of legality and limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the absence of proper notice to the petitioner warranted reconsideration of the case and emphasized the need to verify the status of the workshop and allow the petitioner to raise objections.
Issues: Whether the lack of notice to the petitioner invalidates the assessment order and raises questions of legality and limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that without serving proper notice, the authority's actions were invalid, allowing for an opportunity to contest the assessments.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order passed under Section 24(1) of the KGST Act , for the return period of 2005-06. Apart from raising a question regarding limitation, the petitioner raised a question regarding legality of the order on various grounds.
2. Petitioner's case is that, his workshop has been closed down in the year 1997 and the building was dismantled. It is submitted that no notice in Form No.18A was issued by the respondents and no formalities have been followed in the matter.
3. Learned Government Pleader on the other hand points out that, the petitioner did not respond to the notice. It is submitted that this is based on the penalty proceedings under Section47(6) and assessment proceedings have been completed. However, it is also admitted that notice was also served by affixure.
4. This Court is of the view that, in view of the fact that no notice was served on the petitioner, the matter requires reconsideration. The authority has to verify whether the workshop was demolished in the year 1997 itself and an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to raise all the contentions including limitation.
5. In view of the above, following orders are issued:
(i) The impugned order is set aside.
(ii) The petitioner or the authorised representative shall appear before the authority on 18.08.2015 at 11.a.m.
(iii) The authority on that day or subsequent day shall give copies of all the documents relied by them in terms of assessment under Section 24(1) of KVAT Act.
(iv) Thereafter, necessary orders shall be passed within a period of two months, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner and adverting to his objections.
This writ petition is disposed of.
