M/S. Coffee Day Global Ltd vs The State Tax Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 16196 Ker

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                       PRESENT

                        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

              WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1943

                               WP(C) NO. 13932 OF 2021

PETITIONER:

               M/S. COFFEE DAY GLOBAL LTD.,
               39/6182, 6183, ALAPPAT CROSS ROAD, ATLANTIS JN.
               RAVIPURAM, KOCHI 682 015,
               REPRESENTED BY IT AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SUMODH P. MOHANAN.
               BY ADVS.
               S.K.DEVI
               SHANMUGHAM D. JAYAN
               M.RAJ MOHAN


RESPONDENTS:

     1         THE STATE TAX OFFICER,
               SGST DEPARTMENT, I CIRCLE, KALAMASSERY AT CIVIL STATION,
               KAKKANAD 682 030.
     2         THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER,
               SQUAD NO. VIII, DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM 682 015.
     3         STATE OF KERALA,
               REPRESENTED BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY,
               SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.


               R3 BY DR.THUSHARA JAMES, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER (TAX)



      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.08.2021, THE

COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 13932 OF 2021
                                     2



                                  JUDGMENT

Dated this the 4th day of August 2021 Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner has challenged assessment

orders contemplated under Section 25(1) of the

Kerala Value Added Tax Act for the years 2014-15

and 2015-16 before this Court on the ground of non-

compliance with the principles of natural justice.

It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the

petitioner collected and remitted tax @ 5% on the

sales turnover of the roasted coffee beans. But

according to the second respondent, the commodity

is liable to be taxed @ 14.5%. The learned counsel

for the petitioner submitted that the order

imposing penalty on the petitioner was challenged

by the petitioner by filing W.P.(C)No.3709 of 2016

and the order imposing penalty came to be stayed by

this court, by orders at Exts.P4 and P5. It is

further contended that during the assessment

proceedings, the petitioner tendered an WP(C) NO. 13932 OF 2021

application, Ext.P5 with a request that, this Court

had granted stay to the proceedings based on

penalty order passed by the Intelligence Officer

and therefore, the issue of assessment should be

deferred till final orders are passed by this Court

in the petition challenging the penalty

proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner

by drawing my attention to the communication at

Ext.P5 submitted that the petitioner had made it

clear to the respondents that, if the respondents

are not inclined for deferment of assessment

proceedings then the petitioner be granted an

opportunity of replying on the said issue also.

With this it is argued that no opportunity of

hearing was granted to the petitioner despite

making such a request.

3. The learned Senior Government Pleader

refuted these contention by pressing reliance on

the assessment orders at Exts.P1 and P2. She drew

my attention to the recital in the assessment WP(C) NO. 13932 OF 2021

order showing that the petitioner was heard prior

to the passing the assessment order. She therefore

submits that, the petitioner needs to be relegated

to the regular remedy of preferring an appeal

challenging the assessment order, if he is so

advised.

4. I have considered the submissions so

advanced and perused the impugned assessment

orders at Exts.P1 and P2. Undoubtedly, these

assessment orders can be challenged by filing the

statutory appeals. The High Court can entertain the

writ petition provided breach of principles of

natural justice are demonstrated while passing

impugned orders. In the case in hand, the

assessment orders show that pre-assessment notices

were duely communicated to the petitioner under

proper acknowledgments. The assessment orders

further state that Sri. Sumodh P. Mohan, the

Accounts Head of the petitioner appeared before the

Assessing Officer for personal hearing. The said WP(C) NO. 13932 OF 2021

Accounts Head of the petitioner had also tendered

reply before the Assessing Officer. It is further

stated in the assessment order that the Assessing

Officer has meticulously verified the reply and

documents produced by the dealer. It is further

stated in the impugned assessment orders that the

plea was raised by the authorized representative at

the time of personal hearing which which was

attended by such representative with the record.

That plea is also stated to have been considered by

the Assessing Officer. In other words, both the

impugned assessment orders are mentioning of the

fact that not only replies furnished by the

petitioner was considered, but the authorized

representative of the petitioner was personally

heard prior to passing the assessment orders.

          In    the     view     of    such      recitals    in     the

assessment      orders,     it    cannot      be    said     that    no

opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the

petitioner . It cannot be held that the impugned WP(C) NO. 13932 OF 2021

orders suffers from breach of principles of natural

justice. The petitioner has alternate and most

efficacious remedy of preferring statutory appeals

challenging impugned assessment orders. Hence the

petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

A.M.BADAR JUDGE SSK/04/08 WP(C) NO. 13932 OF 2021

APPENDIX

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 32070229435/14-15 DATED 31.3.2021 FOR THE YEAR 2014-15.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 32070229435/15-16 DATED 12.4.2021 FOR THE YEAR 2015.16 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER NO. CR-IEC VIII/68/15-16 DATED 6.1.2016.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC NO. 3709/2016 (K) DATED 1.2.2016.

Exhibit P4A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC NO. 3709/2016 (K) DATED 11.3.2016.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 30.3.2021. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. 32070229435/15-16 DATED 11.2.2021.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 30.3.2021 (ACKNOWLEDGED) ON 9.4.2021).

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL


SSK                   //TRUE COPY//                     PA TO JUDGE