Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 725 (KER)

KARICKAL HARDWARES v. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

2011-07-07

S.SIRI JAGAN

body2011
JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the assessment orders passed by the assessing authority under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. The petitioner's contention in this writ petition is that the petitioner was forced to file this writ petition without resorting to the statutory remedies available, only because the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of being heard before passing the assessment orders. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. In paragraph 4 of the statement filed by the 1st respondent, it is stated thus : "4. In these circumstances, a notice dated 18.12.2010 under Section 24 of the KVAT Act was issued to the petitioner inviting objections. An opportunity of personal hearing was also afforded in the said notice. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner appeared and requested to grant further time for filing reply, which was allowed. Later the petitioner again appeared and sought for extension of time for reply as well as hearing. Even though, the time was allowed upto 11.02.2011, the petitioner filed objections on 09.02.2011. At this juncture, the petitioner has stated that he has nothing more to submit in the matter. Admittedly, on going through the objections filed by the petitioner, they have clearly admitted the anomalies in their accounts and stock. They have also stated that "it is not possible to keep all the legal terms and other necessaries with an immediate effect to the implementation of the enactment. So if any defects are happened in our method of accounting, it is not a reason to take penal action against us". The petitioner sought for a lenient view in this matter and to drop the proposal issued under Section 24 of the KVAT Act. Considering the various contentions raised by the petitioner and evaluating the objections filed by them the assessment under Section 24(1) of the KVAT Act was completed for the period from April 2010 to August 2010 as per Order dated 14.02.2011. The said assessment order is issued after completing all the procedural formalities and verifying all the records as provided under the statute." The petitioner has not chosen to file a reply to the same. That means the averment that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard is not correct. The said assessment order is issued after completing all the procedural formalities and verifying all the records as provided under the statute." The petitioner has not chosen to file a reply to the same. That means the averment that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard is not correct. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner and leaving it open to the petitioner, to sort out his problems through an appeal against the assessment orders, this writ petition is dismissed.