2014 (10) TMI 197 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Extension of time for filing reply - Time granted on telephonic conversation - Order passed in violation of principle of natural justice - Held that - Necessarily when e-mail communications are relied on, at the first instance, there would be certain start up problems, which has to be looked at in a practical manner. However, the Assessing Officer in the present case cannot be faulted for concluding the proceedings, since the Assessing Officer did not receive the reply and the assessee also did not turn up for availing an opportunity for hearing. But, looking at the practical aspects, it is only proper that Exhibit P4 is set aside only for the reason that the petitioner s objections were not considered at all; for whatever reasons, even if the Assessing Officer cannot be faulted. Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Finalisation of assessment proceedings under Section 24(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003; Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the order without considering objections raised by the petitioner; Correctness of email address used for communication; Setting aside of Exhibit P4 order.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to the finalisation of assessment proceedings initiated under Section 24(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The petitioner contested the process, citing a violation of the principles of natural justice as the Assessing Officer passed the order without considering the objections raised. The petitioner had sought time to file a reply, which was granted, and subsequently filed the reply via email. However, the Assessing Officer did not receive the email, and the petitioner did not appear for a hearing, leading to the passing of Exhibit P4 order.

The Government Pleader argued that the petitioner was granted the requested time and chose to file a reply via email instead of appearing for a hearing. It was highlighted that there was an issue with the correctness of the email address used for communication, as the email address in the reply did not match the official one. The court acknowledged the practical challenges of relying on email communications but emphasized that the Assessing Officer should have considered the petitioner's objections before concluding the proceedings.

In light of the circumstances, the court set aside Exhibit P4 and directed the petitioner to submit a certified copy of the judgment, along with the writ petition and objections, to the Assessing Officer within two weeks. The petitioner was instructed to appear before the Assessing Officer for a hearing, which should be conducted and concluded within two months from the specified date. Ultimately, the writ petition was allowed, with each party bearing their respective costs.