By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.k.krishnasmt.meera V.menon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU THURSDAY ,THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 25TH MAGHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 3174 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: P.N.KRISHNAKUMAR,AGED 66 YEARSS/O.NANU EZHUTHASSAN, PADINJARATHARAKKAL HOUSE“KRISHNA”, VILANGAN, VIVEKANDA ROAD, THRISSUR. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENONSMT.K.KRISHNASMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1THE AGRL.INCOME TAX AND STATE TAX OFFICERSGST DEPARTMENT, POOTHOLE, THRISSUR-680004. 2THE INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONERDEPARTMENT OF SGST, POOTHOLE, THRISSUR-680004. DR. THUSHARA JAMES, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The petitioner, a trader in furniture, is an assessee under theKerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. He claims that he closed hisbusiness in 2015 and informed the Department about it on time.With that, the 1[st] respondent cancelled the petitioner's registration,as seen from the Ext.P1. 2.To assess the petitioner for the years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, the respondents initiated proceedings and claimed to have sent notices to both his business and residential addresses. As thepetitioner did not respond, the assessing authority passed theExts.P3 and P3(a) orders. Assailing those orders, the petitioner hasfiled this Writ Petition. 3.The petitioner's counsel contends that the petitioner hasnever received any notice from the authorities to the businessaddress. He contends that the petitioner wound up his business longback, and therefore the question of the authorities' sending a noticeto business address served no purpose. Besides that, about the residential address the petitioner's counsel draws my attention tothe postal endorsements as recorded in the Ext.P3. According tohim, it does not amount to due service. The net result, in thecounsel's view, is that the Exts.P3 and P3(a) assessment orders arepassed without notice to the petitioner and that goes to the root ofthe adjudicatory propriety: the principles of natural justice standviolated. 4.The Government Pleader, on the other hand, has initiallycontended that the petitioner had been put on notice. According toher, once the Department sends notice to the last known address andthat address is found to have been correct, the Department's roleceases. Therefore, she maintains that there has been due service ofnotice and, therefore, both the Exts.P3 and P3(a) do not suffer fromany legal infirmity, much less that of violating the principles ofnatural justice. 4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also thelearned Government Pleader for the respondents. 5.Indeed, the issue falls in a narrow compass: whether thepetitioner had been put on notice before the authorities passed the Exts.P3 and P3(a) orders. As has rightly been contended by the petitioner's counsel, admittedly, the business stood closed in 2015: sothe authority's sending a notice to his business address actuallyserved no purpose. 6.Besides that, about the petitioner's residential address, thepostal endorsements on both occasions read as follows: “not known”and “abolished.” Even in terms of the General Clauses Act, onceintimation was left with the addressee and still he would not makeefforts to get the notice served, it would amount to due service. But——the endorsement herethat is “not known” and “abolished”wouldby no means suggest that there is any deemed service. 6.Under these circumstances, I set aside the Exts.P3 andP3(a) orders and remand the matter to the authorities concerned forfresh adjudication. At this juncture, the Government Pleader suggests that this Court may fix a particular date and let the party appear before theauthority concerned. That arrangement could obviate the furtherhassle of sending notices and then inviting further litigation on thatcount. I, therefore, direct the petitioner to appear before the WP(C).No. 3174 of 2019 6.Under these circumstances, I set aside the Exts.P3 andP3(a) orders and remand the matter to the authorities concerned forfresh adjudication. At this juncture, the Government Pleader suggests that this Court may fix a particular date and let the party appear before theauthority concerned. That arrangement could obviate the furtherhassle of sending notices and then inviting further litigation on thatcount. I, therefore, direct the petitioner to appear before the WP(C).No. 3174 of 2019 authority concerned on 01.03.2019; then the authority will proceed with the matter. Sd/- sd DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1COPY OF THE WEB PAGE OF THE COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT SHOWING THE DEALER REGISTRATION CANCELLED DATED 02.07.2015. EXHIBIT P2COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM WESTFORT HI-TECH HOSPITAL LTD. THRISSUR DATED 31.12.2018.EXHIBIT P3COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 27.12.2018.EXHIBIT P3 ACOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 DATED 27.12.2018.sd