9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 317 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxViolation of principles of natural justice (audi alterem partem) - assessment orders were passed without affording a reasonable opportunity to the appellant company - HELD THAT - It is a fact that the judgment of the learned Single Judge in ATLAS JEWELLERY P LTD., VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX (FORMERLY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KERALA). THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, STATE TAX, THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2022 (3) TMI 268 - KERALA HIGH COURT pertained to a sister company of the appellant that was functioning with the same management. It follows, therefore, that the difficulties that were faced by the said sister company were identical to those faced by the appellant as narrated in the statement of facts in the Writ Appeal. Taking note of the said circumstances and finding the reasons for non-appearance of the appellant before the Assessing Officer in response to the notice for hearing to be genuine, thus a similar treatment, as extended to the petitioner in WP(C).No.21798 of 2021, can be extended to the appellant herein as well. The impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition, as also the order in the Review Petition, to the limited extent that it does not set aside the assessment orders impugned in the Writ Petition, set aside - appeal disposed off.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are ex-parte assessment orders passed under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act for the assessment years 2013-2014 to 2016-2017, violation of principles of natural justice, applicability of the provisions of the KVAT Act in light of the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016, and the challenge against the impugned assessment orders. Ex-parte assessment orders and challenge based on natural justice: The appellant filed a Writ Petition challenging the ex-parte assessment orders passed without affording a reasonable opportunity. The appellant also questioned the applicability of the KVAT Act following the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016. The Single Judge relied on a previous decision and directed the appellant to pursue an alternate appellate remedy under the KVAT Act for a detailed adjudication. Review petition and similar direction sought: After discovering a judgment favoring a sister company in a similar situation, the appellant filed a Review Petition seeking a similar direction to set aside the assessment orders and remit the matter for fresh consideration. The Single Judge dismissed the Review Petition, leading the appellant to file a Writ Appeal seeking a direction akin to that issued for the sister company. Decision of the High Court: The High Court considered the circumstances of the case, noting the similarities between the appellant and the sister company in terms of management and challenges faced. Acknowledging the genuine reasons for the appellant's non-appearance before the Assessing Officer, the Court set aside the judgment of the Single Judge and the Review Petition to the extent that the assessment orders were not overturned. The assessing authority was directed to conduct fresh assessments for the appellant for the relevant years within three months, with a personal hearing scheduled for the appellant. The Court clarified that the challenge based on the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016 was not interfered with in this decision. Disposition of the Writ Appeal: The Writ Appeal was disposed of with the direction for fresh assessments to be conducted for the appellant within a specified time frame, while upholding the Single Judge's decision on the constitutional challenge.
|
