AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present writ petition filed by the petitioner- assessee is directed against the assessment order passed under Section 39(1) of the KVAT
Act, 2003 dated 30.12.2017 for the period 2011-12 raising a demand of Rs.28.19 Crores including the tax, interest and penalty.
The ground of attack in the present writ petition is the breach of principles of natural justice, as the learned Senior counsel Mr.K.P.Kumar
argued that against the proposition notice served upon the dealer on 24.11.2017, the petitioner-assessee asked for a reasonable time period of
additional 20 days vide its communication dated 27.11.2017, but instead of 20 days it took about 30 days to prepare the final reply and the
moment it was ready, the said reply was sought to be filed before the concerned authority on 03.01.2018, but before that, the impugned order
itself was passed on 30.12.2017.
The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner- assessee has submitted that the Affidavit of the concerned Chartered Accountant
Mr.T.N.Raghavendra has also been filed in this Court, in which he has stated that he was in constant touch with the Respondent- Assessing
Authority and made oral request for grant of additional time, to which, he orally agreed and in the last, when he visited the office on 26.12.2017 ,
he asked for an additional week''''s time to file the reply to the proposition notice, to which he was assured, but unfortunately, the said impugned
order was passed on 30.12.2017 itself raising the said demand, which the learned Senior counsel urged is also not sustainable on merits.
However, these submissions are controverted by the learned AGA for the Revenue Mr.T.K.Vedamurthy, upon instructions of the said Officer
present in the Court that no such assurance of an adjournment of more than 20 days only which was originally prayed for by the assessee in the
communication dated 27.11.2017 was given by the Respondent-Assessing Authority and since the petitioner-assessee failed to file its objections
within the concerned time period of 20 days as prayed by itself, the authority concerned was free and rather duty bound to pass the said
assessment order, which he did on 30.12.2017 . He also submitted that against the impugned order, the petitioner-assessee has a remedy by way
of an appeal under Section 62 of the KVAT Act, 2003.
Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is satisfied that prima-facie there appears to be no breach of principles of natural
justice in the present case. The relevant portion from the impugned order is quoted below for ready reference about the proceedings drawn in the
matter by the Respondent-Assessing Authority.
The said proposition notice was duly served on the dealer on 24-11-2017 and objections if any were called for.
In response to the said notice the assessee filed a letter on 27-11-2017 stating that, they are in the process of making detailed written submissions
to issues raised in the proposition notice, as some of the issues raised in the proposition involves interpretation of law and requested to grant
additional 20 days time to file written submissions.
The reply filed by the assessee is considered and granted 20 days time to submit the reply. Even after lapse of 30 days time, the assessee neither
filed any reply nor appeared before the undersigned. Hence, it is understood that, the assessee has nothing to say against the said proposals made
in the proposition notice dated 24-11-2017. Therefore, I have left with no other alternative except to conclude the assessment by confirming the
proposals made in the proposition notice as under Section39(1) of the KVAT Act 2003 for the tax period from April 2011 to March 2012 as this
is a time barred case"".
Since the impugned reassessment order is appealable before the first Appellate Authority namely, the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), this Court
is not inclined to interfere in the said order on merits, as the petitioner- assessee has an effective alternative remedy of appeal against the said
order.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a liberty and direction to the petitioner-assessee to avail the said remedy by way of an appeal
under Section 62 of the KVAT Act, 2003 and if such an appeal is preferred within a period of 30 days from today within the time limit given under
Section 62 of the Act, then the Appellate Authority shall decide the said appeal expeditiously in accordance with law. No costs.
For a period of one month from today, it is expected that the Revenue will not take precipitative action against the petitioner-assessee. However,
further interim protection would abide by the orders passed by the Appellate Authority on the stay application filed by the assessee-company.