Neetha Sebastian vs Sales Tax Officer, 1st Circle, Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam and Another

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.—The petitioner is challenging exhibit P10 assessment order passed by the first respondent in respect of the assessment year 2004-05 under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The case of the petitioner is that the above assessment order has been passed, without serving the pre-assessment notice, for the reason that the notice referred to in exhibit P10 stated as sent by registered post on February 26, 2007 was never served to the petitioner, as the petitioner''s industry had already been closed down as early as on October 15, 2002 and the closure of the business was communicated to the concerned authorities vide exhibit P2 issued in the year 2004.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, pursuant to the intimation given by the petitioner as per exhibit P2, the petitioner was required to surrender the registration certificate and such other particulars vide exhibit P2, exhibit P3 issued in December 2004 and that the same was surrendered. There was no action for quite long. Thereafter, on February 6, 2006, the petitioner was served with exhibit P4 issued by the first respondent, to produce books of accounts in respect of the relevant assessment year. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioner filed exhibit P5, stating that the petitioner could not act on time and thus seeking for one more chance, pursuant to which exhibit P6 notice was issued granting such opportunity. But then, the petitioner preferred exhibit P7 request for adjournment on May 16, 2006, and yielding to the said request, exhibit P8 fresh notice was issued by the first respondent on January 18, 2007. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioner filed an application through the "tax practitioner" of the petitioner, pointing out that the assessee was not in station, seeking for an adjournment. However, quite after long time, exhibit P10 order was passed by the first respondent on June 22, 2007, followed by demand notice, seeking to realise the sum of Rs. 2,98,366, which forms the subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition.

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. It is found that though the matter was filed in September 2007, it is still to be admitted. After the first posting in the last week of September 9, 1997, and the next posting in the first week of October, 2007, the matter did not come up except on December 10, 2010, when it was adjourned on the request of the petitioner and stands now posted before the Bench for final hearing.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner''s industry was closed down as early as on October 15, 2002 and that the said fact is well known to the first respondent as well, who ought to have sent the "reassessment notice" dated June 22, 2007 referred to in exhibit P10, in the residential address of the petitioner. Even though the petitioner has stated that such industry was closed down as early as in the year 2002, this court finds that the petitioner herself has given her address as "Neetha Sebastian, Proprietor, Sevana Industries, Vaduthala" in exhibit P7 request dated May 16, 2006 for adjournment. This being the position, the contention raised by the petitioner does not hold any water at all, with reference to the actual address in which the notice might have been issued. That apart, the proceedings show, that the notice sent to the assessee by registered post was returned with the postal endorsement, that the "addressee had left the place". The petitioner having admitted the receipt of the notices issued by the first respondent earlier, particularly as in the petition to produce the books of accounts and the petitioner having submitted exhibit P7 notice for adjournment (who was then served with exhibit P8 notice and thereafter sought for further adjournment as per exhibit P9), ought to have been vigilant enough to ascertain the actual particulars especially with regard to the next date of hearing scheduled by the first respondent.

The petitioner having not pursued any such exercise, taking the minimum effort to see that the proceedings were taken to logical conclusion, cannot now take a "u-turn" and say that there was failure on the part of the first respondent in finalising the proceedings as per exhibit P1. This court finds that the writ petition is devoid of any merit. Interference is declined and writ petition is dismissed.