PADMARAJAN P Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is stated as aggrieved of Exts.P3 and P4 assessment orders passed by the first respondent in respect of the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. The main ground of challenge is with regard to the denial of opportunity to substantiate the facts and figures before the assessment proceedings were finalised, mainly for medical reasons.

(2.) THE pleadings and proceedings reveal that the petitioner is a works contractor having transaction solely with M/s. Cochin Shipyard Ltd. and is an assessee on the rolls of the first respondent. According to the petitioner, the total turn over reported was not considered and Ext.P1 and P1(a) pre-assessment notices were issued under Section 25 (1) of the KVAT Act. On receipt of the said notice, Ext.P2 submission was made pointing out that, the Chartered Accountant of the petitioner was admitted as an inpatient in the Medical Trust Hospital and in view of the surgery, adjournment by three weeks was sought for. According to the petitioner, there was no further response from the first respondent and he was served with Exts.P3 and P4 assessment orders, fixing a huge liability, without any regard to the facts and figures, particularly, the TDS effected and issuance of Form 20B, which, if reckoned, would not have fastened any liability upon the petitioner and hence under challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) IN the course of proceedings, the first respondent has filed a statement seeking to rebut the averments and the allegations stating that, several chances were given, but the petitioner was simply avoiding the process. Initially, in response to the notice dated 26/07/2011, it was stated that the assessee was under treatment in the Ayurveda College,Tripunithura for one month, thus seeking for an adjournment to that extent, to have it kept pending till 15/09/2011. Since the assessee did not turn up for three months, Exts.P1/P1(a) notice was issued under Section 25(1) on 05/01/2012. It is also stated that the petitioner was personally directed to produce the details before 29/02/2012, when the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 request for adjournment. The first respondent contends that, by virtue of the statutory requirement under Rule 60 of the KVAT Rules, the audit report had to be submitted on or before the 31st of October, as in the case of the persons like the petitioner, which, however, was extended by the Commissioner till 11/03/2011. No such return was filed by the petitioner within the stipulated time and in the said circumstance, the proceedings were finalised by passing the assessment orders, which are under challenge in this writ petition. With regard to the case of the petitioner that, there cannot be any suppression in respect of the turn over in the case of a works contractor, it is stated that the suppression in the instant case or suppression in the case of works contractor, is normally not with respect to the total turn over, but with respect to the 'taxable turn over'. Pointing out that the petitioner is a habitual defaulter and that he has not produced any records for the years 2008- 09 onwards, it is stated that he is keeping himself away, protracting things, simultaneously adding that the version of the petitioner that he appeared in the office during March, April and May is not correct. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.8938/2012 producing some additional documents as well, showing the hospitalisation and particulars of treatment of the Chartered Accountant availed in the Medical Trust Hospital, in support of the contention raised in the writ petition.