P. SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The assessee is the revision petitioner. Assessment relates to the year 1995-96. Following are the questions of law raised by the assessee for our consideration:

(2.) The assessee was a registered dealer doing business in rice and cashew nuts under the name and style "Pragathi Seva Traders" at Kumbla. According to the assessee business was closed in September 1997 and the closure was duly and promptly intimated to the assessing authority. The assessee had filed its return for the year reporting a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 1,43,61,007.15 and Rs. 1,42,78,947.15, respectively. The assessing authority had called for the books of account maintained by the assessee by issuing form 50 notice dated September 14,1999. Notice was served on his residential address. On scrutiny of the records the assessing authority had concluded that the assessee had failed to maintain true and complete accounts and accordingly rejected the accounts and proposed to complete the assessment on best judgment assessment basis. Notice dated February 19, 2000 under Section 17(3) of the Act was accordingly issued to the assessee in his residential address. The assessee then submitted objections through his authorised representative. After considering the objections the assessing authority had passed assessment order putting the date March 18, 2000. According to the assessee, that order was not communicated to him for months together. On August 21, 2000, the assessee had sent a letter by registered post acknowledgment due to the assessing authority informing that though notice under Section 17(3) dated February 19, 2000 was issued to him and he had submitted his objections on March 13, 2000 final assessment order was not passed and communicated to him within the period of four years mentioned in Section 17(6) of the Act.

(3.) The assessee had also sent a letter dated August 21, 2000 informing that he was not served with the order. On receipt of that letter the assessing authority had sent a certified copy of the assessment order which is dated March 18, 2000 and was received by the assessee on October 26, 2000. The assessing authority had also suo motu exercised the powers under Section 43 of the Act and revised the assessment and reduced the tax liability to Rs. 10,86,491. The assessee filed two appeals against those orders and those appeals were finally disposed of by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on December 22, 2000 setting aside both the orders under appeal and remitted the case back to the assessing authority for fresh disposal. The assessee took up the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. It was pointed out before the Tribunal that the impugned assessment order was not served on the assessee and the procedure contemplated under Rule 63 of the KGST Rules was not followed. Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and ordered as follows: