ANITHA VARGHESE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was an assessee on the rolls of the second respondent under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (the Act) . Proceedings have been initiated by the second respondent for assessment of the escaped turnover of the petitioner for the year 2014-'15 invoking the power under Section 25(1) of the Act as per Ext.P1 notice. It is alleged by the second respondent in Ext.P1 notice that the petitioner has not disclosed certain purchases and sales, the particulars of which are mentioned therein, in the returns filed by her under the Act. The case of the petitioner is that she has sent Ext.P2 reply stating that the transactions referred to in the notice except one are transactions disclosed by her in the returns filed under the Act. It is alleged by the petitioner that without considering the said reply, the assessment of the petitioner for the relevant year has been completed by the second respondent in terms of Ext.P5 order. It is stated by the petitioner that she has, therefore, preferred Ext.P6 application for rectification of Ext.P5 order on the ground that the same is vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the records. Ext.P6 application has been rejected by the assessing authority as per Ext.P7 order on the ground that the contentions raised by the petitioner in Ext.P6 are not matters which could be gone into by the assessing authority invoking its power under Section 66 of the Act. Exts.P5 and P7 orders are under challenge in the writ petition.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

(3.) At the time of hearing, the learned Government Pleader has made available the files relating to the assessment proceedings of the petitioner. The files made available by the learned Government Pleader indicate that the document produced by the petitioner in the writ petition as the reply given by her to Ext.P1 notice, is not the reply given by the petitioner to Ext.P1 notice. The files reveal that the petitioner had sent a reply on 06.02017 to Ext.P1 notice and the said reply does not contain the stand taken by the petitioner in Ext.P2 reply. The relevant portion of the said reply reads thus: