BIJU A.L. Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the legal heir of late A.V.Lazer, who is a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax, 2003 (for short, 'the KVAT Act') on the rolls of the 1st respondent. The assessee had filed return for the year 2009-2010 and had also submitted audit reports and financial statements such as profit and loss account and balance sheet as on 31.3.2010. Later, the assessee submitted Exhibit P3 request dated 7.3.2011 for revising the return in tune with the turnover as per the audit report. Exhibit P4 notice under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act was issued by the 1st respondent on 21.11.2011 proposing to reject the return for the year 2009-2010 for reason of there being difference between the turnover figure shown in the return and the figures in the audit report. The assessee submitted Exhibit P5(a) reply to the notice and pending the proceedings, the assessee passed away.

(2.) Later, Exhibit P6 notice dated 1.3.2016 was issued to the assessee requiring him to furnish details against the proposal for rejection of the return. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner responded under Exhibit P7 and submitted that the assessee is no more and the business was closed down. It was pointed out that a reply had been submitted by the assessee on 17.1.2012 and the books of accounts had also been produced. The petitioner also sought further time for producing the documents. But, without giving any further opportunity, the assessment was finalised under Exhibit P8 order dated 21.3.2016. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted Exhibit P9 rectification petition under Section 66 of the KVAT Act. But in the meanwhile, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated for recovery of the tax due under Exhibit P8. Hence the writ petition.

(3.) Heard.