Kerala High Court
P.V.Ajayan vs Commercial Tax Officer on 21 September, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
TUESDAY,THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2017/13TH ASHADHA, 1939
WP(C).No. 21972 of 2017 (V)
----------------------------
PETITIONER :
---------------------
P.V.AJAYAN,
PULIYANTHUNDATHIL HOUSE,
ARUMANOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 564,
REPRESENTING THE STOPPED BUSINESS,
NAMELY M/S. HOTEL FAIRMOUNT, NAGAMPADOM,
KOTTAYAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.AJI V.DEV
SMT.O.A.NURIYA
RESPONDENT(S):
-----------------------------
1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
FIRST CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAX COMPLEX,
KOTTAYAM-686 001.
2. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
COMMERCIAL TAXES, CIVIL STATION,
KOTTAYAM-686 002.
3. DEPUTY TAHASILDAR,
KOTTAYAM-686 001.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SHAMSUDHEEN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 04-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C).No. 21972 of 2017 (V)
----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
--------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 21.09.2012.
EXHIBIT P2 ATRUE COPY OF THE RR NOTICE IN FORM-1 DATED 21-06-2017
EXHIBIT P2(A) ATRUE COPY OF THE RR NOTICE IN FORM-10 DATED 21-06-2017.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED FOR THE YEAR
2011-12 DATED 01-03-2017.
EXHIBIT P4 ATRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER'S SISTER CONCERN DATED 01-08-2007.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
-------------------------------------------
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
sts
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.21972 of 2017
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 4th day of July, 2017
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P3 assessment order. The main contention on which Ext.P3 assessment order is challenged in the writ petition is that, the petitioner was not served with any notice or afforded a hearing, prior to passing Ext.P3 order, and therefore that the order is vitiated on account of a non-compliance with the rules of natural justice.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
3. On a perusal of Ext.P3 assessment order, I find that the respondents have taken steps to serve the notice of hearing to the petitioner at the last known business address, as also the residential address of the petitioner. The notices served on the petitioner were returned with an endorsement "addressee left". It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents could have served the notice in the address of the sister unit of the petitioner, in which the petitioner was the managing partner. The said contention does not appear to me as W.P.(c).No.21972 of 2017 : 2 : reasonable since, as per the provisions of the statute, the respondents are obliged to serve the notices, in the business address/residential address, that is indicated by the petitioner dealer. In the instant case, in the absence of any document to show that the petitioner had communicated the change of address to the respondents, the respondents cannot be faulted for having passed Ext.P3 order ex parte, without hearing the petitioner. I find that Ext.P3 order does not suffer from any jurisdictional defect, nor can it be seen as one that is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice so as to interfere with the same in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I am of the view that, against Ext.P3 order, the petitioner should be relegated to his alternative remedy, of filing an appeal before the appellate Authority under the KVAT Act. Accordingly, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to approach the appellate authority under the KVAT Act, the writ petition in its challenge against Ext.P3 assessment order is dismissed.
Taking note of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would require some time to move the appellate authority, I make it clear that, recovery steps for recovery W.P.(c).No.21972 of 2017 : 3 : of the amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P3 order shall be kept in abeyance for a period of three weeks, so as to enable the petitioner to move the appellate authority, in the meanwhile.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE sm/