2019 (4) TMI 1550 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - Ext.P1 is assailed is that the petitioner on account of a few health issues was unable to move out of the house or appear before the first respondent on the dates when enquiry was held - HELD THAT - This Court, prima facie, is of the view that the case in hand is not a case of complete denial of opportunity to petitioner or following the requirements of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003; but a case of examining whether the opportunity afforded to petitioner merits reasonableness and the opportunity if is lost, can the petitioner take advantage of his last opportunity to get the matter decided afresh by the 1st respondent. Without much deliberation by taking note of contents in Ext.P4 and also the bona fide offer of petitioner to deposit substantial a sum of ₹ 2,00,000/- even before the assessment order is passed would go to show that the petitioner was in fact prevented from availing the opportunity given to the first respondent beyond the circumstances under his control. Ext.P1 assessment order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the first respondent for disposal in accordance with law - appeal disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to assessment order based on health issues, denial of opportunity, reasonableness of opportunity afforded, remand for fresh disposal.

In this case, the petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 12.03.2019, citing health issues as the reason for not being able to attend the enquiry. The petitioner relied on a medical certificate from I Vision Eye Hospital to prove the inability to participate. The petitioner's counsel argued that due to health issues, some objections could not be raised, and the petitioner deposited ?2,00,000 towards tax as a gesture of good faith. The counsel requested a remand for fresh disposal. On the other hand, the senior Government Pleader suggested that the petitioner could appeal the order and that the Appellate Authority could address any alleged illegality in the assessment. Alternatively, if the court inclined to grant an opportunity, the petitioner could appear before the first respondent after depositing ?2,00,000. The court observed that the case was not about complete denial of opportunity but about the reasonableness of the opportunity given. Considering the medical certificate and the petitioner's deposit, the court set aside the assessment order and remitted the matter to the first respondent for lawful disposal. The petitioner was directed to appear before the first respondent on a specified date with proof of payment.

The court emphasized that the petitioner's deposit of ?2,00,000 before the assessment order indicated a genuine inability to avail the opportunity given by the first respondent. The first respondent was instructed to verify the deposit and, if necessary, provide another hearing date to finalize the assessment by a specified deadline. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, ensuring the petitioner's rights were protected while upholding the principles of natural justice and reasonableness in the assessment process.