K.S.PAREED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Writ Appeal is filed challenging judgment dated 18.02.2020 of the Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.4608/2020. The Writ Petition was filed, praying to call for the records leading to Ext.P5 assessment order and Ext.P6 demand notice issued by the

(2.) nd respondent, and to quash the same; and for a direction to the 2nd respondent to keep in abeyance any recovery proceedings that may be initiated in pursuance of Ext.P5 assessment order and Ext.P6 demand notice. 2. The issue relates to assessment made under the KVAT Act for the year 2013-14. As per the pre-assessment notice, Ext.P1 dated 26.10.2019, the 2nd respondent sought to assess the appellant under Rule 10(2)(b) of the KVAT Rules, 2005 by treating the appellant as a dealer who has not maintained the Books of Account. The appellant submitted reply to Ext.P1 on 25.11.2019, wherein it was stated that the appellant had submitted the requisite statutory Audit Report online and the hard copy of the same with audited Profit and Loss Account, Balance Sheet and supporting schedules for the year 2013-14 duly certified by the Chartered Accountant, are being produced. The appellant has produced copy of the reply as per Ext.P3 and also the copy of the mail from the appellant's authorised representative, along with the attachment which contain the calculation statement of taxable turnover as per Exts.P4, P4(a) and P4(b), along with the writ petition. The 2 nd respondent had, issued Ext.P5 assessment order on 30.12.2019. It can be seen from Ext.P5 that the 2nd respondent decided to accept the Books of Accounts, and to treat the appellant as a dealer coming under Rule 10(2)(a) of the KVAT Rules. Having taken such a decision, the 2nd respondent proceeded to assess the appellant without considering Exts.P3, P4, P4(a) and P4(b), which had been placed before him. Contention of the appellant was that, if the Assessing Authority was not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the appellant and the reconciliation statement produced, the Assessing Authority ought to have issued notice to the appellant regarding the proposal to deviate and with respect to the intention to complete the assessment. The appellant contends that, unless such a notice is issued, the appellant will not be able to satisfy the Assessing Authority regarding correctness of the documents submitted by the appellant.

(3.) The learned Single Judge, after noticing the requirements under Rule 10(2)(a) and Rule 10(2)(b), disposed of the writ petition by relegating the appellant to the remedy of appeal. The appellant is challenging the judgment on the ground that, since Ext.P5 order was issued in total violation of principles of natural justice and in non-compliance of the mandatory procedure, it is without jurisdiction and submits that the learned Single Judge ought not to have relegated the appellant to the alternate remedy of appeal and ought to have exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.