9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 74 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxPrinciples of Natural Justice - order passed after the death of the assessee / appellant - The case of the first petitioner is that she had no knowledge about Exts.P1 to P3 orders and the decision taken by the appellate authority on the appeals preferred by K.F.Francis against the said orders - KVAT Act - Held that - Rule 76 of the Rules says that since nobody got himself/herself impleaded as additional appellant in the appeals preferred by K.F.Francis on his death within the time stipulated, the said appeals were abated. Rule 77 of the Rules provides for application to set aside the abatement in a case of this nature. The said Rule also provides that provisions contained in Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to the application under Rule 77 of the Rules - in the absence of any material to indicate that the first petitioner was aware of the pendency of the appeals at the time of the death of her husband, the first petitioner shall be given an opportunity to file applications to get herself impleaded and set aside the abatement of the appeals preferred against Ext.P1 to P3 orders. Petition allowed permitting the first petitioner to prefer applications for impleading and set aside the abatement of the appeals preferred against Exts.P1 to P3 orders - the first petitioner shall be given an opportunity to file applications to get herself impleaded and set aside the abatement of the appeals preferred against Ext.P1 to P3 orders.
Issues:
1. Appeal against orders assessing escaped turnover. 2. Death of the assessee during the appeal process. 3. Legal rights of the deceased's legal representative. 4. Compliance with principles of natural justice in disposal of orders. Issue 1: Appeal against orders assessing escaped turnover The judgment involves a case where the first petitioner, the wife of the deceased assessee, challenged orders assessing the escaped turnover of the assessee under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. The orders were challenged in appeals by the assessee and later by the first petitioner after the assessee's death. The appellate authority affirmed the orders, leading to the petitioners seeking directions to refrain from continuing proceedings for realisation to enable them to prefer second appeals. Issue 2: Death of the assessee during the appeal process The assessee died during the appeal process, and rules under the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, were considered. Rules 76 and 77 address the procedure in case of the death of an appellant pending proceedings. Since no one got impleaded within the stipulated time after the assessee's death, the appeals were abated. Rule 77 provides for setting aside the abatement, allowing the first petitioner an opportunity to file applications for impleading and setting aside the abatement of the appeals preferred by the deceased. Issue 3: Legal rights of the deceased's legal representative The judgment emphasizes the importance of allowing the legal representative of the deceased to have an opportunity to participate in the appeal process. It highlights the need for compliance with procedural rules to ensure that the legal rights of the deceased's representative are protected, including the right to set aside abatement and continue with the appeals. Issue 4: Compliance with principles of natural justice in disposal of orders Regarding one of the orders, it was found that the matter was disposed of without affording the first petitioner an opportunity of hearing, leading to a violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the order was deemed liable to be interfered with, highlighting the significance of adhering to procedural fairness in legal proceedings. In conclusion, the judgment allowed the first petitioner to prefer applications for impleading and setting aside the abatement of the appeals against certain orders. It directed the appellate authority to consider and dispose of these applications promptly. Additionally, an order was quashed due to non-compliance with natural justice principles, with directions given for a fresh decision. Proceedings for realisation of amounts covered by certain orders were deferred for a specified period.
|
