AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J
The petitioner, who is an assessee on the rolls of the 1st respondent is stated as aggrieved of Ext. P1 notice dated 10.5.2012 proposing to finalise the assessment u/s 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. The grievance is that, it is the verbatim reproduction of Ext. P4 notice issued earlier, leading to the assessment order which stands set aside by this Court vide Ext. P2. The sequence of events is as follows: On 27.2.2009 the petitioner was given Ext. P6 work order by M/s. Roman Tarmat Ltd. The assessment for the year 2008-2009 was sought to be made u/s 25(1) issuing Ext. P4 notice on 7.2.2011. On receipt of Ext. P4 notice the petitioner submitted Ext. P5 reply on 1.4.2011 explaining facts and figures. However, without any regard to the same, the assessment was finalized by the 1st respondent, who passed Ext. P3 revised assessment order, which in turn was subjected to challenge by filing W.P.(C) No. 14636 of 2011. After hearing both the sides, this Court observed that the proceedings were finalized without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which was a mandatory requirement u/s 25(1) assessment. Reliance was also placed on the decision rendered by this Court in Suzion Infrastructure Service Ltd. V. Commercial Tax Officer (W.C.), Ernakulam reported in 2010 (3) KHC 299 (Ker). It was specifically observed in paragraph 4 that, it was not evident from the impugned order (Ext. P3 herein) whether any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the party before finalization of the assessment. It was accordingly that the revised assessment order was set aside and the 1st respondent was directed to consider and pass fresh orders after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner with liberty to produce the books of accounts and other documents in support of the objections raised. The case of the petitioner is that, in spite of the above specific direction, the 1st respondent has issued Ext. P1 revised assessment notice on 10.5.2012 without considering the reply of the petitioner and hence under challenge in this writ petition.
Heard the learned Govt. Pleader as well. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent is pursuing the very same course intending to finalize the assessment after making it appear that opportunity has been given to the petitioner, allegedly in compliance of Ext. P2 judgment. The learned counsel further submits that the correct factual and legal position has been explained by the petitioner already in Ext. P5 and this being the position, there is no need to file any further objection, as far as the petitioner is concerned, but for the opportunity to produce the relevant books of accounts and such other materials. The apprehension of the petitioner is that the matter is going to be finalized in a casual manner as discernible from the expression of words as given in Ext. P1, which appears to be verbatim reproduction of the same in Ext. P4 notice. Learned Govt. Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the apprehension made by the petitioner is quite wrong and unfounded and that the matter will be finalized only after giving an opportunity to the petitioner for production of documents, in support of Ext. P5 reply. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no more objections, but for Ext. P5 submitted already in response to Ext. P4 and that the petitioner is ready and willing to produce all the books of accounts and other relevant documents. It is also submitted by the petitioner that he is ready and willing to produce further materials if any, as required by the officer concerned. As it stands so, this Court cannot presume that the rights and liberties of the petitioner flowing from Ext. P2 judgment are likely to be defeated at the hands of the respondents in any manner. More so, when the right to have opportunity of hearing before finalization of the proceedings u/s 25(1) stands concluded by virtue of the decision rendered by this Court in 2010 (3) KHC 299 (Ker) (Cited Supra)and also by virtue of the ruling rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 1370/2011.
In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 1st respondent to finalize the proceedings with reference to Ext. P5 reply already submitted by the petitioner in response to Ext. P4, treating the same as in response to Ext. P1 notice and appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner on the date of hearing now scheduled as to be held on 26.6.2012 or on such other date to which the case is adjourned by the concerned authority.