2015 (6) TMI 266 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of impugned order - Violation of principle of natural justice - Held that - conduct of the petitioner in not filing his objections within the time granted by the first appellate authority, I am of the view that the challenge in the writ petition, against Ext.P7 order, on the ground that it has been passed in violation of the rules of natural justice, cannot be entertained. Thus, without making any observations as regards the merits of the petitioner s case, I relegate the petitioner to the alternate remedy of filing an appeal against Ext.P7 order of the 1st respondent before the appellate authority under the KVAT Act. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to assessment order under KVAT Act for the assessment year 2007-08 based on violation of natural justice.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with a writ petition challenging Ext.P7 order passed by the assessing authority under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act for the assessment year 2007-08. The petitioner contended that Ext.P7 order was passed in violation of natural justice as the petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard before the order was issued. The High Court considered the submissions of both parties and noted that the petitioner had previously appealed against the original assessment order. The first appellate authority, through Ext.P2 order, accepted the petitioner's contention that the assessing authority had not verified the petitioner's books of accounts or heard the petitioner before issuing the assessment order. Consequently, the appellate authority set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter back to the original authority. The petitioner was directed to file objections within one month from the date of the appellate order, which was treated as a pre-assessment notice. However, the petitioner failed to submit objections within the specified period and instead requested an extension, which was not granted. Subsequently, the assessing authority issued Ext.P7 order confirming the original assessment.

The High Court observed that the petitioner's failure to file objections within the granted period as directed by the first appellate authority was crucial. Considering the conduct of the petitioner, the Court held that the challenge against Ext.P7 order on grounds of violation of natural justice could not be entertained. The Court refrained from commenting on the merits of the petitioner's case and directed the petitioner to pursue the alternate remedy of filing an appeal against Ext.P7 order before the appellate authority under the KVAT Act. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging Ext.P7 order, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and exhausting available remedies before seeking judicial intervention.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the significance of complying with procedural requirements and exhausting alternate remedies before approaching the court for relief. The decision highlights the importance of following due process and engaging in the prescribed appeal mechanisms provided by the law, rather than seeking immediate judicial intervention.