2013 (2) TMI 412 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Request of filing revised return rejected - Held that - Exts.P11 to P14 orders rejecting the request for filing revised returns were passed without taking into account Exts.P9 and P10 objections. Although, the learned Government Pleader contended that the objections, evidenced by Exts.P9 and P10, were filed after Exts.P11 to P14 orders were passed, obviously, the petitioner was unaware of these orders. No order rejecting request for time for filing objections was communicated to the petitioner also. Thus the respondent should re-consider the matter after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of notices issued under Sections 25 and 67 of the KVAT Act for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11.
2. Petitioner's request to file revised returns and subsequent proceedings.
3. Rejection of petitioner's request for filing revised returns and objections filed thereafter.
4. Passing of orders on the notices without considering objections filed by the petitioner.
5. Lack of communication regarding rejection of the petitioner's request for time to file objections.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner, a dealer under the KVAT Act, received notices (Exts.P1 to P4) under Sections 25 and 67 for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. The petitioner sought permission to file revised returns in response to the notices. A writ petition (W.P.(C) No.27198/2012) was filed, resulting in an order (Ext.P5) directing a halt to further proceedings until a decision on the revised return request is made.

2. Following a hearing on the request, the respondent issued a notice granting time for objections to Exts.P1 to P4. Despite the petitioner's subsequent request for time to file objections if the revised return request is denied (Ext.P6), no response was provided. An order (Ext.P8) rejecting the revised return request was issued later, leading to the petitioner submitting objections (Exts.P9 and P10) and appealing against Ext.P8.

3. Orders (Exts.P11 to P14) were passed on Exts.P1 to P4 without considering the objections filed by the petitioner. The court noted that the objections were filed after the orders were passed, but the petitioner was unaware of the decisions. The lack of communication regarding the rejection of the request for time further complicated the situation.

4. In light of these circumstances, the court concluded that the respondent should reconsider the matter, taking into account the objections (Exts.P9 and P10) and providing a hearing to the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of, quashing Exts.P11 to P14 and instructing the respondent to issue fresh orders on Exts.P1 to P4 within four months from the date of the judgment, with the petitioner required to provide a copy of the judgment to ensure compliance.