MATRIX INTERNATIONAL Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has assailed order dated 24-6-2014 (Annexures-A to E) passed in suo motu revision petitions under Section 63-A of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') made by respondent 1 for the assessment period 2006-2007 to 2010-2011. The main ground on which aforesaid orders have been assailed is that there being no representation on behalf of the petitioner before the Revisional Authority, inasmuch as the petitioner was unable to file objections and also petitioner who had engaged Counsel was unable to represent the petitioner before that authority, adverse orders are passed. Hence, the impugned revisional orders are assailed by the petitioner as being in violation of the principles of natural justice. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents and perused the material on record.

(2.) First respondent initiated suo motu revisional proceeding under Section 63-A of the Act by issuance of notices dated 28-4-2014 and 30-4-2014 (Annexures-P to T) granting seven days time to file objections, if any, from the date of receipt of those notice. Petitioner sought four weeks time to file objections. However, the concerned officer granted two weeks time. Thereafter, there have been several applications filed by the petitioner's Counsel seeking extension of time for filing of objections and also for a personal hearing. The petitioner had filed its preliminary objections. According to the petitioner, time was sought to file objections as the petitioner's Counsel was undergoing eye treatment and was not in a position to attend to his work. The grievance of the petitioner is that sufficient time was not granted to the first respondent and without complete objections being filed on behalf of the petitioner and there being no personal hearing granted to the petitioner, the impugned orders have been passed. Therefore, petitioner has sought an opportunity of being heard before the first respondent-authority.

(3.) On perusing the material on record, it is noted that on receipt of notice from the first respondent-authority, the petitioner's Advocate had appeared before that authority and sought time on account of a bona fide health reason as petitioner's Advocate was undergoing eye treatment. It was for that reason four weeks time was granted in the first instance, so that the objections could be filed by them. It is noted that petitioner's Counsel was granted two weeks' time. But during that time only preliminary objections were filed and detailed objections were not filed before the authority. The reason as to why the petitioner was unable to file the objections before the first respondent-authority nor could be effectively represented before that authority was due to the treatment that the petitioner's Counsel was undergoing for his eye and on account of that reason there was no effective representation made on behalf of the petitioner before the first respondent-authority. In the absence of the case of the petitioner being considered, through his Advocate there was violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as there was no effective representation on behalf of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders are quashed. The petitioner is directed to file his statement of objections on or before 20-8-2014. If the objections are filed on that date, then the respondent is directed to personally hear and consider the representations and dispose of the proceedings within a period of two months from 20-8-2014.