Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The petitioner impugns Ext.P6 order of the 1st respondent. Ext.P6 is an assessment order passed under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the KVAT Act') for the assessment year 2012-2013. In the writ petition, the petitioner impugns Ext.P6 on the ground that the said order was passed without taking note of the submission of the petitioner, that there were mistakes that had crept into the annual return filed by him and a request was pending before the authority for effecting a revision of the return so filed. On a perusal of Ext.P6 order, however, I find that while passing the said order, the 1st respondent has considered the reply filed by the petitioner, to the notice issued to him under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act, and taken note of the objections of the partitioner, which are substantially the same as those that formed the basis for the requests for revision of returns. The 1st respondent, thereafter, gave relief to the petitioner in respect of some of the invoices that were relied upon by the petitioner, and disallowed some of the other claims of the petitioner. Thus, it is not a case where the petitioner was  prejudiced by the refusal of the respondents to permit him to revise the returns that he had already filed. The objections that were filed by the petitioner were duly considered by the 1st respondent, and reasons given for disallowance in respect of the other objections raised by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, I feel that the petitioner, if he is aggrieved by Ext.P6 order, has an alternate remedy by way of an appeal under the KVAT Act. The present case is not one where this Court should interfere with the order of assessment passed by the assessing authority under the KVAT Act. In the instant case, there is no irregularity with regard to the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent in passing Ext.P6 order, and further, it has not been demonstrated that the order has been passed in violation of the rules of natural justice or by ignoring the statutory period of limitation under the KVAT Act. Thus, leaving it open to the the petitioner to pursue his alternate remedy under the KVAT Act against Ext.P6 order, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

Counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is a possibility that recovery steps may be initiated against him for recovery of the amounts confirmed by Ext.P6 order, during the time it takes for preferring the appeal as directed in this judgment. Taking note of the said submission, I direct that recovery steps for  recovery of the amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P6 order, shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks so as to enable the petitioner to approach the appellate authority under the KVAT Act.