2013 (2) TMI 437 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Violation of the principles of natural justice - Assessment order ( passed rejecting assessee s request to grant more time - Held that - As per this office notice dated 18/10/2012, the dealer was granted an opportunity of being heard in person on 5.11.2012. The assessee has availed the above chance through their Authorized representative & argument put forth by the Authorized representative at the time of personal hearing was only the repetition of what they had represented in the reply dated 01.11.2012. There is no averment in the writ petition that the aforesaid statements in Ext.P3 are factually incorrect. If that be so, petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing on 5/11/2012 which is after receipt of Ext.P2 reply. This belies the case of the petitioner that Ext.P3 assessment order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. For that reason, decline to interfere.

Summary

Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice in passing assessment order under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act for the assessment year 2011-2012.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner received a notice (Ext.P1) for amending assessment under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act for the assessment year 2011-2012. The petitioner responded with a reply (Ext.P2) and an assessment order (Ext.P3) was subsequently passed, leading to the filing of the writ petition challenging Ext.P3.

2. The main contention raised was that the petitioner was granted a personal hearing on 18/10/2012 upon receiving Ext.P1 notice, but the petitioner requested more time. Despite this request, Ext.P3 order was passed without affording the petitioner the opportunity for a hearing, which was deemed violative of the principles of natural justice.

3. The Government Pleader highlighted statements from Ext.P3 assessment order indicating that the petitioner was indeed given a chance for a personal hearing on 5/11/2012, after the receipt of Ext.P2 reply. The authorized representative of the petitioner was heard during this hearing, and it was noted that the arguments presented were a repetition of those in the earlier reply dated 01.11.2012.

4. The court observed that there was no factual challenge to the statements in Ext.P3 regarding the opportunity for a hearing on 5/11/2012. This undermined the petitioner's claim that Ext.P3 assessment order was passed in violation of natural justice principles. Consequently, the court declined to interfere with Ext.P3 assessment order and disposed of the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to pursue statutory remedies against the order.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Kerala High Court emphasizes the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to natural justice principles in administrative decisions, particularly in matters of assessment under the KVAT Act. The court's scrutiny of the facts and the petitioner's contentions showcases a balanced approach to upholding legal standards while providing avenues for further redressal within the statutory framework.