9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 1287 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRejection of rectification of error apparent on the face of record - non-hearing of the case - no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner - Section 66 of KVAT Act - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Provision of Section 66 deals with power of the authority to rectify any error apparent of the face of record. However any provision in the said Section is not found which declaring that no opportunity of hearing can be granted to the assessee filing an application for rectification. In the case in hand the application for rectification under section 66 of the KVAT Act (Ex.P9) contains a specific prayer made by the petitioner that his application for rectification should be decided after granting an opportunity of personal hearing to him. It is evident from the order at Ext.P10 that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner while passing the order rejecting the application for rectification. Moreover the order at Ext.P10 cannot be said to be a reasoned order rejecting the application for rectification which has raised several grounds. Writ petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Opportunity of hearing in rectification application under Section 66 of the KVAT Act. 2. Error apparent on the face of record in assessment order at Ext.P8. 3. Principles of natural justice in passing orders on rectification applications. Analysis: Issue 1: Opportunity of hearing in rectification application under Section 66 of the KVAT Act The petitioner contended that despite requesting an opportunity of hearing in the rectification application at Ext.P9, the application was rejected without granting such a hearing. The Government Pleader referred to Section 66 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, arguing that parties are entitled to be heard only in cases of enhancing assessment or penalty. However, the court observed that Section 66 does not prohibit granting an opportunity of hearing to the assessee filing a rectification application. The petitioner's specific prayer for a personal hearing in the application was noted, and the court found that the rejection order at Ext.P10 lacked reasoning and failed to address the grounds raised in the rectification application. Issue 2: Error apparent on the face of record in assessment order at Ext.P8 The petitioner argued that the assessment order at Ext.P8 contained errors evident from a previous assessment order at Ext.P1. The court acknowledged the petitioner's claim and highlighted the need for a reasoned decision on rectification applications to address such errors. The court found that the rejection order at Ext.P10 did not adequately consider the alleged errors in the assessment order, leading to the quashing of the order and remittance of the rectification application for fresh consideration. Issue 3: Principles of natural justice in passing orders on rectification applications The court emphasized the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice in administrative decisions. In this case, the court held that denying the petitioner an opportunity of hearing while rejecting the rectification application violated these principles. As a result, the court set aside the impugned order, directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider the rectification application after granting the petitioner a proper opportunity of hearing. The court's decision was based on upholding fairness and procedural justice in administrative actions, ensuring that parties are heard before decisions affecting their rights are made. In conclusion, the judgment focused on the necessity of providing an opportunity of hearing in rectification applications, rectifying errors in assessment orders, and upholding principles of natural justice in administrative proceedings.
|
