2019 (11) TMI 552 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of pre-assessment notices - It is the case the of the petitioner that even before Ext.P6 assessment order was passed he had preferred a request for revising the returns filed for the said years so as to correct certain discrepancies that had occurred while filing the returns. HELD THAT - Inasmuch as for the assessment year 2012-2013 Ext.P6 assessment order has been passed completing the assessment in relation to the petitioner for the said year, permitting the petitioner to now revise his returns for the said year would not be possible. For the said year, the petitioner has to be relegated to his alternate remedy of filing an appeal before the appellate authority for urging his contentions on the merits of the case. If the petitioner prefers an appeal against Ext.P6 order within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, then the appellate authority shall consider the same as one filed within time and proceed to consider the stay application preferred by the petitioner on merits. Assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 - HELD THAT - The proceedings are now at the stage where Exts.P7, P8 and P9 pre-assessment notices have been issued and the assessment is yet to be completed. It is not in dispute that there are no penal proceedings initiated against the petitioner for the said assessment years, and further, that the petitioner had in fact made a request for revising his return before the respondents - the petitioner in the instant case must be afforded an opportunity to revise his returns for the assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. The respondents shall therefore do the needful to open the web portal of the Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) so as to enable the petitioner to upload the revised return for the assessment years in question. The Writ Petition is thus disposed by rejecting the challenge against Ext.P6 assessment order and relegating the petitioner to his alternate remedy of filing an appeal before the appellate authority under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act against the said order, and directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to revise the returns for the other assessment years (2013-14 to 2015-16).

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge against Ext.P6 assessment order for the assessment year 2012-2013.
2. Pre-assessment notices Exts.P7, P8, and P9 for the assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, and 2015-2016.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge against Ext.P6 assessment order for the assessment year 2012-2013
The petitioner, a non-resident Indian, challenged the Ext.P6 assessment order passed against him for the assessment year 2012-2013. The petitioner had requested to revise the returns filed for that year before the assessment order was passed, citing discrepancies. The court found that since the assessment for 2012-2013 had been completed, the petitioner's request to revise the returns for that year was not feasible. The court directed the petitioner to file an appeal within three weeks against the Ext.P6 order to pursue his contentions. The recovery steps for the confirmed amounts were to be put on hold until the appellate authority made a decision on the stay application. Failure to file an appeal within the specified time would result in losing the benefit of the judgment.

Issue 2: Pre-assessment notices for the assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, and 2015-2016
The court noted that for the assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, and 2015-2016, the assessment proceedings were ongoing, and pre-assessment notices (Exts.P7, P8, and P9) had been issued. No penal proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner for these years, and the petitioner had requested to revise the returns. Referring to a previous decision, the court emphasized the importance of allowing honest assesses to correct mistakes in their returns without facing undue hostility from tax authorities. Therefore, the court directed the respondents to open the web portal of the Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) for a week to enable the petitioner to upload revised returns for the mentioned assessment years. The assessment for these years would only proceed after the revised returns were filed, and fresh pre-assessment notices were issued based on those returns. The court disposed of the Writ Petition by rejecting the challenge against Ext.P6 assessment order and allowing the petitioner to revise the returns for the subsequent assessment years.

This judgment provides a comprehensive analysis of the issues raised by the petitioner, ensuring fairness and procedural correctness in the tax assessment process.