AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.—The petitioner is before this Court in the second round of litigation, after inviting Ext.P4 judgment in W.P. (C) No. 12360 of 2012 dated 30.05.2012. The grievance of the petitioner is that pursuant to Ext.P4 judgment, the first respondent has issued assessment notices, as borne by Exts.P5/P8, in respect of the concerned assessment years. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has already approached the second respondent by filing Ext.P7 application for clarification u/s 94 of the VAT Act and if the proceedings are finalised by the first respondent before getting clarification in Ext.P7 application, it may adversely affect the rights and interests of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner seeks for a direction restraining the first respondent from taking further action pursuant to Exts.P5 and P8 till Ext.P7 is disposed of. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
Going by the materials on record, it remains a fact that the assessment was finalised earlier by passing Ext.P3 assessment order dated 07.05.2012 by the first respondent, which in turn was challenged by filing W.P.(C) No. 12360 of 2012. The main ground of challenge was that no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner as contemplated u/s 25(1) of the KVAT Act, inspite of specifically seeking for such an opportunity of hearing and as such, the impugned order was in blatant violation of law and the principles of natural justice, as made clear by this Court in Suzion Infrastructure Services vs. Commercial Tax Officer (WC), Ernakulam [2010 (3) KHC 299] and in W.A. No. 1370 of 2011 (by judgment dated 02.11.2011). It was in the said circumstance that the impugned order was set aside by this Court as per Ext.P4 directing the respondent to pass fresh assessment order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is accordingly, that proper notice has been issued to the petitioner granting an opportunity of hearing, as directed by this Court.
Ext.P7 is the application preferred by the petitioner before the second respondent u/s 94, seeking for clarification as to the actual rate of tax payable in respect of the commodity dealt with by the petitioner. This application itself is dated 27.06.2012. There was no such case for the petitioner at any point of time earlier, when the petitioner approached this Court with W.P. (C) 12360 of 2012, inviting Ext.P4 judgment. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that the prayer of the petitioner to keep further proceedings in abeyance with regard to the assessment, till appropriate orders are obtained on Ext.P7 petition is not liable to be entertained. Interference is declined.
The writ petition is dismissed.