Failure Of The Dealer To Attend Assessment Proceedings, No Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that failure of a dealer to attend assessment proceedings cannot be regarded as the violation of principles of natural justice. The single bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas has observed that petitioner/dealer was granted sufficient opportunity to contest the assessment proceedings and the failure to do so cannot be regarded as a violation of...
The Kerala High Court has held that failure of a dealer to attend assessment proceedings cannot be regarded as the violation of principles of natural justice.
The single bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas has observed that petitioner/dealer was granted sufficient opportunity to contest the assessment proceedings and the failure to do so cannot be regarded as a violation of the principles of natural justice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The petitioner, a public limited company, has been engaged in the business of various IT-related services. The petitioner has filed an annual return. A notice was issued under section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act) alleging various irregularities.
A reply notice was filed by the petitioner. The total escaped turnover proposed by the assessing officer as per notice. The petitioner has pleaded that after the reply to the notice, no communication was received, and that the petitioner assumed the matter to have been closed.
However, notice was issued under section 25(1) of the KVAT Act, stating that the total escaped turnover was proposed to be Rs.29.32 crores.
The petitioner responded by email requesting an additional time of two weeks for submitting the information and seeking an opportunity for a hearing before any orders are passed.
The respondent/department adjourned the proceeding to 02.02.2021 with an assertion that 'no further adjournment will be granted'. There was no appearance on 02.02.2021. The petitioner again sought an additional time of one more week, for submitting its response and again sought an opportunity of hearing.
The court noted that because of petitioner's failure to appear for the hearings as well as the failure to file any objection, the respondent could not have done anything other than issue an order of assessment, as proposed in the notice.
Case Title: Karvy Innotech Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner (ASSMT) SGST Department
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 121
Counsel For Appellant: Advocates A. Kumar, P. J. Anilkumar, G. Mini, P. S. Sree Prasad, Job Abraham, Ajay V. Anand
Counsel For Respondent: Senior Government Pleader Thushara James