Kerala High Court
Knr Constructions Ltd vs The Commercial Tax Officer [Works ... on 13 November, 2017
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/22ND KARTHIKA, 1939
WP(C).No. 35338 of 2017 (N)
----------------------------
PETITIONER:
---------------------
KNR CONSTRUCTIONS LTD.,
KL 02 PACKAGE PROJECT OFFICE, XI/706, PAMPAMPALLAM,
ATTAPALLAM, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 621, FORMERLY AT 12/125,
CHANDRANAGAR COLONY 12, CHANDRANAGAR, PALAKKAD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR OF PROJECTS,
V.VENUGOPAL REDDY.
BY ADV. SRI.R.MURALIDHARAN (AROOR)
RESPONDENTS:
--------------------------
1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [WORKS CONTRACT],
CT WORKS CONTRACTS OFFICE,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
PALAKKAD, PIN -678 001.
2. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
TAX TOWER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -695 002.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SHAMSUDHEEN.V.K.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C).No. 35338 of 2017 (N)
----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
---------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SANCTION ISSUED UNDER RULE 11(2) OF THE
KVAT RULES,FOR THE YEAR 2013-2014 DTD 20/4/2013
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SANCTION ISSUED UNDER RULE 11(2) OF THE
KVAT RULES, FOR THE YEAR 2014-2015 DTD 28/5/2014
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SANCTION ISSUED UNDER RULE 11(2) OF THE
KVAT RULES, FOR THE YEAR2015-2016 DTD 9/6/2015
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER R6(5) OF THE CST
ACT,FOR THE YAR 2012-2013 DTD 13/2/2017
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER R6(5) OF THE CST ACT,
FOR THE YEAR 2013-2014 DTD 13/2/2017
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER R6(5)OF THE CST ACT
FOR THE YEAR 2014-2015 DTD 13/2/2017
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE IST RESPONDENT, DTD 3/3/2017
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE IST RESPONDENT, DTD 08/03/2017
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE IST RESPONDENT, DTD 12/4/2017
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE IST RESPONDENT, DTD 27/4/2017
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT,
U/R.6(5) FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 DTD 3/6/2017
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER , DTD
28/6/2017
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER
RELATING TO THE INTERSTATE TRANSACTIONS IN THE YEAR
2012-2013, TO FILE BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE IST
RESPONDENT DTD 18/9/2017
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
------------------------------------------
/TRUE COPY/
sts P.A.TO JUDGE
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
===========================================
W.P.(C). No. 35338 of 2017
=====================================================
Dated this the 13th day of November, 2017
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P14 assessment order passed against him under the Central Sales Tax Act. In the writ petition the challenge against Ext.P14 assessment order is premised mainly on the contention that, although the petitioner sought for the data, on the basis of which, the pre assessment notice was sent to the petitioner, the data from the KVATIS system was e-mailed to a wrong address and not the correct e-mail address of the petitioner.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
The learned Government Pleader would submit, on instructions, that the data was sent to a wrong address, because the petitioner had not intimated the correct e-mail address to the department. This submission of the learned Government Pleader is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. At any rate, finding that the data was not served on the petitioner, I find that -2- W.P.(C). No. 35338 of 2017 Ext.P14 order cannot be legally sustained. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P14 order and direct the 1st respondent to pass fresh orders in the matter after hearing the petitioner and after considering Ext.P13 statement preferred by the petitioner to substantiate his contention on merits. To enable the 1st respondent to do so, I direct the petitioner to appear before the 1st respondent at his Office at 11 AM on 24.11.2017. The 1st respondent shall pass fresh orders, as directed, within a month thereafter.
sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE das/ 13.11.2017