2017 (1) TMI 1523 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Revision of assessment - petitioner contends that even prior to the issuance of notice, the petitioner had requested for revision of returns as per Ext.P5 dated 23.03.2016. It is to be noticed that the request made for revision was after the inspection and the recoveries made thereat - Held that - From the words employed it is clear that the Assessing Officer has not been ever apprised of the communication by e-mail. If at all, the same was received and remaining in the mail box, the Assessing Officer would not have opened it and in such circumstance, merely on the contention that an application for revision was sent by e-mail, there cannot be any revision allowed to the petitioner. The application for revision, as is seen from Ext.P4, obviously, was sent after the inspection, anticipating the notice under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. This Court is unable to countenance the contention taken by the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P12. The orders passed at Ext.P11 being appealable, this Court declines jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, since no other illegality, warranting interference invoking the extraordinary power has been pointed out - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of application for revision of assessment for the year 2014-2015.
2. Request for revision of returns after inspection and recoveries made.
3. Alleged e-mail sent by the Consultant for revision not acknowledged.
4. Lack of specific denial of e-mail receipt by the Assessing Officer.
5. Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner, a works contractor, filed quarterly returns for the year 2014-2015 showing 'nil' taxable turnover. An annual return was also submitted to the same effect. However, an inspection conducted led to the issuance of a notice dated 09.06.2016, triggering a request for revision of returns by the petitioner.

2. The petitioner claimed to have requested for revision even before the notice was issued, as per Ext.P5 dated 23.03.2016. It was also argued that a prior application for revision was submitted by the Consultant before the inspection, which was allegedly not acknowledged by the Commercial Tax Officer.

3. The alleged e-mail sent by the Consultant to the Commercial Tax Officer, as per Ext.P12, was not acknowledged or produced in hard copy. The Court highlighted the inadequacy of relying solely on e-mail communication for official notices, emphasizing the need for proper acknowledgment to ensure effective communication with the assessee.

4. The Assessing Officer did not specifically deny the receipt of the e-mail in the counter affidavit. However, it was argued that the mere existence of the e-mail does not imply acknowledgment or consideration by the Officer, especially if it remained unopened in the mailbox. The timing of the revision application post-inspection also raised doubts about its validity.

5. The Court, considering the appealable nature of the orders passed and the absence of any other significant illegality warranting interference, declined jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was dismissed, allowing the petitioner to file a revision within three weeks to halt recovery proceedings for six weeks pending the revision outcome.