Back
2008 Supreme(Online)(KER) 7496
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.M.JOSEPH, J
JOE I,MANGALY OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS – Respondent
WP(C)/33992/2008
SRI.P.J. MATHEW
The court established the requirement for an administrative body to properly consider all objections raised by parties before issuing orders.
Headnote:
Tax - Writ Petition - KGST Act - Section 19C - The court upheld the jurisdiction of the Commercial Tax Officer under Section 19C, emphasizing the need for proper hearing and consideration of objections raised by the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, registered dealers in timber and pet bottles, challenged the assessment notices issued against them under Section 19C of the KGST Act, claiming the officer did not properly consider their objections.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that the jurisdiction issue under Section 19C was open and would be addressed after allowing the petitioners a chance to present their case, thus not entertaining the writ petition.
Issues: Whether the Commercial Tax Officer had jurisdiction under Section 19C in the context of the petitioners' business dealings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it would not pre-emptively rule on the jurisdiction issue but required the Tax Officer to thoughtfully consider the petitioners' objections before any further orders.
Final Decision: Writ Petition disposed with instructions for the Tax Officer to consider objections.
JUDGMENT
Petitioners challenge Exts.P3, P4 and P10. Case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows:
Petitioners are registered dealers in timber and pet bottles.
They have filed returns for the year 2002 - 2003. The assessment was completed by the Assistant Commissioner, Special Circle, Palakkad. The second respondent is the Commercial Tax Officer, Kundara. He issued Exts.P3 and P4 under Section 19C of the KGST Act. According to the petitioners, they have already preferred Exts.P5 and P6 Argument Notes with supporting documents. Petitioners also rely on ext.P7 Judgment rendered in respect of another party. In Ext.P10, there is an examination of Shri B. Madhusoodhanan Pilla who is alleged to have done business with the petitioners and which led to the proposal in Exts.P3 and P4 notices. In Ext.P10, it is stated that after examining the contentions, it was WPC.33992/08 V 2 found that they are not maintainable. According to the petitioners, even though Ext.P7 is not an inter-parties Judgment, it has persuasive effect and in Ext.P7 Judgment, there was a direction to the Officer to consider each objection and that was not done. Learned Government Pleader, however, points out that all that has been done is that as Shri B. Madhusoodanan Pilla, who has in fact issued form 18 declarations is registered with the second respondent and assessment under Section 19C is issued in respect of the alleged business done by the petitioners in conjunction with Shri B. Madhusoodanan Pilla, it was the second respondent who has jurisdiction. It is further pointed out on instructions that the question as to whether there is jurisdiction under Section 19C in the manner, is an open issue and will be decided only after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. In the light of this, I do not think it necessary for me to entertain this Writ Petition. Needless to say, the second respondent will have to apply his mind to each and every objection raised by the petitioners before the second WPC.33992/08 V 3 respondent. It is not necessary for me to pronounce on the issue relating to the jurisdiction of the second respondent. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the ultimate order passed by the second respondent it is for them, if they are so advised, to take appropriate steps against the same.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/=
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk.
// True Copy //
PS to Judge
