Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 10750 Ker
Judgement Date : 21 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 29TH ASWINA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 32235 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
FOCUZ CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED
41/160, 41/161, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT AUTO PARTS
DEALERS ASSOCIATION BUILDING,
NH BYPASS, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR TONY RAPHAEL., PIN - 682024
BY ADVS.
S.K.DEVI
SHANMUGHAM D. JAYAN
RESPONDENT/S:
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT,
SPECIAL CIRCLE I
ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682015
ADV. JASMIN M M (GP)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 32235 OF 2022 2
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has approached this Court, being aggrieved
by Exts.P1 and P2 orders of assessment under the Kerala
Value Added Tax Act, 2003, principally on the ground that
the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing
before the assessment was completed.
2. Smt. S.K. Devi, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner also points out that there are other illegalities in
respect of the assessment orders. It is pointed out that the
assessment orders were issued by an officer, who was
holding the post of the respondent, after he was transferred
from that post. It is submitted that following such transfer,
the officer had no jurisdiction or authority to complete the
assessment against the petitioner.
3. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions,
submits that the contentions taken by the petitioner are not
correct. It is submitted that a notice was issued to the
petitioner and the petitioner failed co-operate with the
assessment, as a result of which, the assessment had to be
completed against the petitioner ex parte. It is submitted
that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy
against Exts.P1 and P2 and there is no reason for this Court
to interfere with Exts.P1 and P2 assessment orders under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent, I am of the opinion that this
writ petition can be allowed and the matter can be
remanded to the files of the respondent for fresh
consideration, after affording the petitioner an opportunity
of being heard. Violation of natural justice is an exception
to the rule of alternative remedy. It is the specific case of
the petitioner that sufficient opportunity was not given to
the petitioner to participate in the assessment proceedings.
Therefore, Exts.P1 and P2 orders for assessment years
2015-16 and 2016-17 are set aside and the assessments for
the said years (2015-16 and 2016-17) are remanded for
fresh consideration of the respondent, who shall complete
the assessment afresh, after affording the petitioner, an
opportunity of being heard. The petitioner shall appear
before the respondent at 11.00 am on 04.11.2022. The
respondent shall, thereafter complete the proceedings as
directed above, within a period of one month from
04.11.2022.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE ajt
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32235/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. 32070212324/2015-16 DATED 22/4/2022 OF THE RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. 32070212324/2016-17 DATED 22/4/2022 OF THE RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 16.2.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P-4(a). TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P-4(b) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P-5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. 32070212324/2014-15 DATED 31/3/2022 OF THE RESPONDENT.
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!