Byju’s Second Rights Issue for Raising Funds Halted by NCLT  ||  Byju’s Second Rights Issue for Raising Funds Halted by NCLT  ||  Gau. HC: Party Can Invoke Arbitration Despite Alternative Remedy Available Under RERA Act  ||  Mad. HC: Sexual Harassment at Workplace a ‘Continuing Offence’ If Causes Constant Trauma and Fear  ||  Delhi High Court: U/S 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Scope of Inquiry is Limited  ||  Meghalaya High Court: Bail Plea Rejected Despite Delay in Trial  ||  Pat. HC: After Commen. of Trial, Amen. of Pleadings Allowed if Required to Arrive at Just Conclusion  ||  Gau. HC: If Delay in Filing Matri. Appeal Not Satisfactorily Expl., Bar Against Remarriage Not Applic  ||  Bombay High Court: Release of Film "Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar" Restrained  ||  Mad. HC: Separate Norms for Transgender Persons in Employment and Education    

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 2024 - All Rights Reserved