RAHMAT BEEVI Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER-II

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the writ petitioner. The writ petition was filed calling in question exhibits P1 to P6 and seeking stay of recovery steps pursuant to exhibits P1 to P6. By exhibits P1 to P6 the appellant has been assessed and penalty imposed for the years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 in substance rejecting the claim of the appellant that there was high sea sales. The learned single judge1 did not find merit in the contention of the appellant that there is violation of principles of natural justice and he dismissed the writ petition noting that the remedy of the appellant is to file appeal before the statutory authority.

(2.) We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Government Pleader. What is pointed out by the appellant is that the notices were issued under sections 25 and 67 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act 2003 ("the Act", for short) wherein it was noted that there is no evidence or documents produced in support of the claim in the return of the appellant that there was exempted sale under section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act. No doubt, objections were called for. It is the case of the appellant that documents were produced by the appellant and in the orders however the officer was not satisfied with the documents. The officer has in fact proceeded to find various defects. There is finding that there is manipulation and further documents should have been produced. In other words, matters which were not subject-matter of the notices served on the appellant have found reflection in the assessment orders and the penalty orders. Thus, the complaint of the appellant is that there is breach of the principles of natural justice. According to the appellant, if an opportunity had been given, the appellant would have been able to clear the doubts of the officer.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, would point out that, notice for instance in respect of exhibit P1 was issued on December 5, 2012. The officer notes that the appellant was trying to evade acceptance of notice. Another notice was sent on December 17, 2012 wherein notice dated December 5, 2012 is referred to. Some documents were simply produced on January 1, 2013. The appellant did not insist for further hearing and it is only on January 7, 2013 that the officer proceeded to pass orders after considering the documents and finding that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of exemption. According to the learned Government Pleader, it is appealable and there is no violation of principles of natural justice.