Ker HC to Municipal Corp.: Provide Complaint No. to Citizens to Report Unauthorized Waste Dumping  ||  JKL HC: Can’t Fastened Liability Based on Chief Exam. Without Affording Opportunity to Cross Examine  ||  Ker HC to State: Consider Representation by CBSE Schools Assoc. Against Proposed Fee Regulatory Comm.  ||  Ker. HC: Printing Agencies Required to Remove Illegal Hoardings Within 7 Days of Notice  ||  Cal. HC: Police Can’t Use Power U/S 160 CrPC to Call/Arrest Someone Unconnected With Alleged Offence  ||  Cal. HC: Acquiring Property in Name of Wife is Not Benami Transaction  ||  Bombay HC Upholds Validity of Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) of IGST Act  ||  Del. HC: Haj Pilgrimage is a Religious Practice  ||  SC: If Sufficient Evidence of Involvement Exists, Person Not Named in FIR can be Added as Accused  ||  SC: Possessory Right of Prospective Purchaser Protected U/S 53A of TP Act    

Euro business system vs. State of Kerala and Ors. - (High Court of Kerala) (17 Jun 2021)

Non-consideration of reply filed by the assessee amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice

MANU/KE/1376/2021

Sales Tax/VAT

The Appellant, a dealer of printers, peripherals and its parts has approached present Court challenging Exhibit P4 order of assessment issued by the State Tax Officer and Exhibit P8 order rejecting the rectification application. Exhibit P4 order of assessment is impugned on the ground that, the same is passed without considering Exhibit P3 reply filed by the Appellant and Exhibit P8 order rejecting the rectification application is challenged on the ground that, it was passed without addressing the apparent error on the face of record pointed out by the Appellant.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that, the question whether the assessing officer ought to have considered the reply submitted subsequently needs to be considered by the statutory appellate authority by calling for records and proceedings of the assessment order and the appellant has remedy of approaching the appellate authority in that regard. The learned Single Judge held that, the error pointed out by the Appellant in the rectification application is not self evident or manifest and refused to interfere with Exhibit P8 order rejecting the rectification application. It is challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition, present writ appeal is preferred.

The Appellant contends that, it is trite law that, until the assessment order is served on the assessee, the assessment is not complete and Exhibit P3 reply filed by the assessee on 22nd October, 2020 ought to have been considered by the assessing authority.

Exhibit P3 reply filed by the assessee was well within the knowledge of the 2nd Respondent before the order was issued for communication to the assessee. Non consideration of Exhibit P3 reply filed by the assessee therefore amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, Exhibit P4 is set aside. The 2nd Respondent is directed to pass an order afresh by looking into Exhibit P3 reply given by the assessee on 22nd October, 2020. The appeal is allowed.

Tags : ASSESSMENT   NATURAL JUSTICE   PRINCIPLES  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2023 - All Rights Reserved