Assessment authorities must allow taxpayers to rectify returns when procedural errors are identified, especially with supporting recommendations from assessing officers.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the 3rd respondent, to permit the petitioner to revise its returns, for the purposes of obtaining F forms to support the the stock transfer, that he had effected during the assessment year in question. In the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that, for the purposes of filing returns, it was constrained to split up invoices, under cover of which it had effected purchases, for the purposes of generating branch transfer memos, showing individual items, as against the purchase invoice, which contained the items bunched together in one invoice. Although the system accepted the returns filed by the petitioner, showing the details of branch transfer effected, when the petitioner put in an application for the issuance of F forms to cover the branch transfers, the F forms were denied, on the ground that there were multiple transactions shown in the system, where the invoice number was common. The suspicion, therefore, was of duplication of transaction. In the writ petition, it is the stand of the petitioner that, while it had brought the issue to the notice of the assessing officer, and the assessing officer had, by Ext.P6 communication, recommended the case of the petitioner for revising the returns for the period 2015-16, taking note of the difficulty faced by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent refused permission to revise the returns, citing the disablement of the KVATIS system. It is under these circumstances, that this writ petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to revise its returns for the year 2015-2016. 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, and taking note of Ext.P6 recommendation of the assessing officer, who found merit in the representation of the petitioner seeking a revision of the returns, I am of the opinion that, the petitioner can be permitted to file revised returns, but in the presence of the assessing officer. I, therefore, direct the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to effect the revision of returns for the assessment year 2015-16, in the presence of the assessing officer, without affecting the total turn over conceded, and without creating any additional tax impact for the assessment year in question. Exts.P7 and P8 shall stand quashed, so as to enable the petitioner to revise its returns, in the presence of the assessing officer, as aforementioned. The 2nd respondent shall ensure that the petitioner is allowed to revise its returns in the KVATIS system in the presence of the 4th respondent assessing officer, inter alia, by enabling access to the system for the purposes of downloading the necessary F forms, to cover the transactions in question. The respondents shall do the needful, so as to give effect to the directions in the judgment, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition, along with a copy of this judgment, before the respondents, for further action.

The writ petition is disposed as above.