JOHNSON AND JOHNSON LTD Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ASSESSMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is challenging Ext. P3 order of assessment completed under the provisions of S.25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act), with respect to the year 2008-09. Despite availability of an effective statutory remedy of appeal, the order is impugned on the ground that it is per se illegal, since the assessment was finalised in violation of mandatory procedure prescribed under the relevant provision and also in violation of principles of natural justice.

(2.) Specific contention of the petitioner is that on receipt of notice proposing the assessment, the petitioner had preferred detailed objections supported by the documents for establishing the contentions. But the assessing authority had unilaterally discarded those objections, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is contended that the opportunity for hearing contemplated under S.25(1) is not an empty formality and any non - compliance of such procedure will vitiate the order of assessment. The petitioner relies on various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, including a recent decision in Suzion Infrastructure Services v. Commercial Tax Officer (WC), Ernakulam, 2010 (3) KHC 299 . Hence the petitioner seeks interference of this Court to quash the order of assessment.

(3.) In the counter - affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent it is mentioned that, the reply filed to the proposal notice was meticulously considered and the reasons for rejection of the contentions were categorically mentioned in the order of assessment. It is stated that pursuant to issuance of proposals notice the petitioner took various adjournments for filing objections. Thereafter the petitioner had produced 'F - form' declarations and sought time for production of 'Form - 13' and 'Form - 13A'. The Audit Report and Statement of Accounts were filed only on 23/12/2010. Thereafter reply to the proposal notice was filed on 27/12/2010. It is contended that a personal hearing was afforded on the date when the objection was filed. On merits of the assessment various contentions are raised by the respondent to the effect that there is no substance in the objections raised against the proposal.