2013 (5) TMI 160 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Assessment order has been passed, without serving the preassessment notice - As the petitioner s industry had already been closed down as early as on 15-10-2002 - The closure of the business was communicated to the concerned authorities - Held that - 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, Propreitor, Sevana Industries, Vaduthala in Ext.P7 request dated 16-5-2006 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. 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 Ext.P7 notice for adjournment, 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 - 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 Ext.P1 - Interference is declined and writ petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging assessment order under Kerala General Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 2004-05 due to alleged failure to serve preassessment notice.

Analysis:
The petitioner contested the assessment order, claiming non-receipt of the preassessment notice due to the closure of their industry in 2002, as communicated to authorities in 2004. The petitioner surrendered the Registration Certificate and other documents upon intimation. Despite subsequent notices to produce books of accounts, the petitioner sought multiple adjournments, delaying the process. The final assessment order was issued in 2007, demanding payment of Rs. 2,98,366, prompting the writ petition.

The Court noted the delay in admitting the matter since 2007, with sporadic postings until 2010 when scheduled for final hearing. The petitioner argued that the notice of reassessment in 2007 should have been sent to their residential address, emphasizing the closure of the industry in 2002. However, the petitioner's address provided in a request for adjournment in 2006 contradicted this claim. The Court highlighted that notices were returned as the addressee had left, and the petitioner had acknowledged previous communications, undermining their assertion of non-receipt.

The Court rejected the petitioner's argument, emphasizing their responsibility to stay informed about the proceedings and attend hearings diligently. The Court found the petition lacked merit, declining interference and dismissing the writ petition.