Metro Polymers vs The Commercial Tax Officer

K. Vinod Chandran, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by the finalisation of the assessment proceedings, initiated u/s 24(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [for brevity "KVAT Act"], evidenced by Exhibit P4.

The admitted facts are that, a notice u/s 24(1) of the Act was issued on 07.03.2014, evidenced by Exhibit P1. The petitioner received the same on 24.03.2014 and immediately thereafter on 28.03.2014, the petitioner sought for three weeks time to file reply. It is submitted that the Assessing Officer had granted the same over telephone. The petitioner, subsequently, filed Exhibit P3 dated 19.04.2014, through e-mail, as is disclosed from Exhibit P3A. Without reference to any of the objections raised, Exhibit P4 order has been passed, which, according to the petitioner, is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice.

The learned Government Pleader, however, submits that even according to the petitioner, the petitioner was granted time, which he had sought for. The matter was posted to 19.04.2014, when the petitioner chose to file a reply, via e-mail, and chose not to appear before the officer for a hearing. It is also submitted that the e-mail address shown in Exhibit P3A is not correct, since the correct e-mail address is "[email protected]" and the e-mail address to which the reply has been forwarded was "[email protected]".

Necessarily when e-mail communications are relied on, at the first instance, there would be certain start up problems, which has to be looked at in a practical manner. However, the Assessing Officer in the present case cannot be faulted for concluding the proceedings, since the Assessing Officer did not receive the reply and the assessee also did not turn up for availing an opportunity for hearing. But, looking at the practical aspects, it is only proper that Exhibit P4 is set aside only for the reason that the petitioner''s objections were not considered at all; for whatever reasons, even if the Assessing Officer cannot be faulted.

In the above circumstances, Exhibit P4 is set aside and the petitioner is directed to produce a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition and the objections before the Assessing Officer within two weeks from today. The petitioner shall be present before the Assessing Officer on 25.06.2014 and the Assessing Officer shall, on the said date or on an adjourned date, hear the matter and dispose of the same within two months from that date.

Writ petition is allowed. Parties shall suffer their respective costs.