Back
2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 32633
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J
M/S BAGALKOT CEMENT & INDUSTRIES LTD – Appellant
Versus
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER-I – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 33464/2016
The court established that a lack of explicit request for a personal hearing does not constitute a violation of the right to be heard under the KVAT Act.
Headnote:
Hearing - KVAT Assessment - KVAT Act, 2003, Section 25(1) - The court upheld the assessment order stating that the petitioner was given an opportunity to be heard and had failed to explicitly request a personal hearing, dismissing the writ petition and preserving the petitioner's right to appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an assessment order under the KVAT Act, claiming a lack of personal hearing, despite evidence showing an opportunity was provided to present contentions and evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was given an adequate opportunity to be heard and had not requested a personal hearing formally. All contentions were considered in the decision-making process.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was denied the right to a personal hearing during the assessment process under the KVAT Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the absence of a formal request for a personal hearing negated the claim of denial of such right, especially when the authority had duly considered the submitted contentions.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, reserving the petitioner's right to appeal.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 by which an order of assessment has been passed under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act, 2003. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of personal hearing.
2. Perusal of Ext.P4 order would show that the petitioner was given an opportunity of being heard and to produce evidence including books of accounts on 26.02.2016 at 11 a.m. The petitioner filed an objection which is produced as Ext.P2. It seems that the officer proceeded to take into consideration the contentions urged in the reply dated 09.03.2016 and passed the impugned order. Perusal of the impugned order would show that all contentions urged by the petitioner had been considered and the matter has been decided on merits.
3. The only objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the right of personal hearing was not afforded to the petitioner.
4. In fact, perusal of Ext.P2, the reply sent on 09.03.2016, would not indicate that the petitioner had sought for a personal hearing. When the authority had already considered all the contentions urged by the petitioner and arrived at a decision, I don't think that it will be proper for this Court to interfere with the impugned order bypassing the alternate remedy available under the statute. If at all any prejudice had been caused to the petitioner for having not been permitted for a personal hearing are all matters which could be considered by the appellate authority in the appeal. There is no reason why this Court should interfere with Ext.P4 order at this stage of proceedings.
In the result, reserving the right of the petitioner to prefer an appeal, this writ petition is dismissed.
