Wp(C)/9301/2017 Of M/S. Tee Vee Son Trading v. Agricultural Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2017/20TH CHAITHRA, 1939 WP(C).No. 9301 of 2017 (K) --------------------------- PETITIONER:----------- M/S. TEE VEE SON TRADING CO. BANK ROAD, NEAR NH 47, ALATHOOR-678 541, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.T.V.SAJU. BY ADV. SRI.TOMSON T.EMMANUEL RESPONDENTS:------------ 1. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALATHOOR-678 541, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES, CHITTOOR-678 101. 3. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES TAX TOWER, KARAMANA PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K. SHAMSUDHIN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-04-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 9301 of 2017 (K) ------------------------------------------Dated: 10[th] April, 2017 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved with Ext.P4 assessmentorder. The contention taken in the writ petition is thatthe petitioner was never issued with a notice under theKerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ('KVAT Act' forshort). The petitioner admits that the petitioner wasissued with a notice under the Central Sales Tax Act,1956 ('CST Act' for short), for which objection wasgiven as per Ext.P3. The proceedings taken under theCST Act is stated to have been dropped in the counteraffidavit of the State. The specific contention taken upby the petitioner is that the petitioner had not receivedany notice under the KVAT Act; the assessment ofwhich is seen completed at Ext.P4. 2.The Assessing Officer has filed a detailedcounter affidavit producing documents evidencing theissuance of notice. The Register of issuance of notice isalso produced before me in original. A verificationindicates that a pre-assessment notice, under the KVATAct, was issued on 25.10.2016. The notice, under theCST Act, was issued on 27.10.2016. The petitionerreceived both the said notices. The receipt of thenotices sent on 25.10.2016 has been certified by theOffice of the Post Master, Alathur, by Annexure R1(f).Annexure R1(f) was necessitated only since theacknowledgement card, with respect to notice underthe KVAT Act, had not been returned. It is also seenthat Annexure R1(c) dated 14.11.2016 was filed beforethe Officer. 3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitsthat Annexure R1(c) is an adjournment application forthe CST assessment. However, an objection is alsoseen to have been filed as per Annexure R1(d) dated17.11.2016. The contents of the said objection is foundto be similar to that of Ext.P3. However, Ext.P3 andAnnexure R1(d) were separately received in the Officeof the Assessing Officer. Ext.P3 dated 18.11.2016specifically shows it to be an objection to a notice underSection 6(5) of the CST Act. If Annexure R1(d) wasfiled as against the CST Act, there was no necessity tofile another objection on the very next day by Ext.P3.This would only indicate that the petitioner has filed thesaid objection (Annexure R1(d)) under the KVAT Act;however, with the details under the CST Act. In suchcircumstance, it cannot be said that the petitioner did W.P.(C) No. 9301/2017 not receive the notice under the KVAT Act. Thesubmission made by the petitioner in the writ petition is found to be incorrect and in such circumstance, thepetitioner would be left remedy to file an appeal fromExt.P4 order. The petitioner, if filing an appeal withinone month, the delay shall not be taken into accountand the appeal shall be considered on merits. W.P.(C) No. 9301/2017 not receive the notice under the KVAT Act. Thesubmission made by the petitioner in the writ petition is found to be incorrect and in such circumstance, thepetitioner would be left remedy to file an appeal fromExt.P4 order. The petitioner, if filing an appeal withinone month, the delay shall not be taken into accountand the appeal shall be considered on merits. The writ petition is rejected with the aboveobservation. Sd/-K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE jjj 11/4/17