THE EMERALD JEWEL INDUSTRY INDIA LTD. (KERALA BRANCH) Vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER (ASSMT) III SPECIAL CIRCLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is an assessee under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (the Act) on the rolls of the respondent. Proceedings have been initiated by the respondent for assessing the escaped turnover of the petitioner for the years 2011-12 to 2016-17 under Section 25 of the Act. Ext.P1 is the notice issued by the respondent to the petitioner in this connection on 19.10.2017 in respect of the year 2011-12. Similar notices have been issued to the petitioner on the same day in respect of the remaining years as well. In terms of the said notices, a hearing was scheduled on 28.10.2017. Immediately on receipt of the said notices, on 21.10.2017, the petitioner requested the respondent for 15 days time to submit their explanation to the notices. According to the petitioner, since they could not get ready in the matter, on 11.11.2017, they have made another request for a further time of 15 days. Later, on 13.11.2017, the petitioner sent Ext.P3 e-mail also to the respondent requesting for 15 days time. According to the petitioner, without considering the aforesaid requests, the assessments proposed in terms of the notices issued were completed by the respondent on 27.11.2017. Ext.P7 series are the orders passed by the respondent in this connection. Ext.P7 series orders are under challenge in the writ petition on the ground that the same are vitiated for noncompliance of the principles of natural justice.

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

(3.) As noted above, the initial request made by the petitioner was only for 15 days time. The said request was made on 21.10.2017 and as such, in terms of the said request, time was sought by the petitioner only till 06.11.2017. The petitioner has admittedly not submitted their explanation before 6.11.2017. It is after about a week thereafter, the petitioner made the second request for time. The said request was made on 11.11.2017 and the respondent granted the same in terms of the e-mail dated 16.11.2017. The request and the reply mail are part of the bunch of documents produced by the petitioner as Ext.P5. The email dated 16.11.2017 has been sent by the respondent to the email id shown in the request of the petitioner dated 11.11.2017. The impugned assessment orders have been issued only after the expiry of the time granted in terms of the email dated 16.11.2017. The petitioner has not disclosed anything about the request dated 11.11.2017 and the email sent by the respondent on 16.11.2017, in the writ petition. Instead, the case set up by the petitioner in the writ petition is that on 13.11.2017, they have made a request and the assessment orders have been issued without considering the said request. Ext.P3 is the said request made by the petitioner. In so far as the request made by the petitioner in terms of their letter dated 11.11.2017 has been granted and when it is admitted that the petitioner has not submitted their explanation within the time limit prescribed in the communication issued by the respondent in this regard, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that impugned orders have been passed without affording them an opportunity of hearing. The stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing was that they have not received the reply sent by the first respondent to the request made by them dated 11.11.2017. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said reply has been sent by the respondent to the general information mail ID of the petitioner. It is seen that the petitioner has no office in the State. In such circumstances, when a request for time is made, it is obligatory for them to indicate in the request itself the address to which the reply has to be sent. The petitioner has not disclosed their address to which reply has to be sent, in their request dated 11.11.2017. In such circumstances, the respondent cannot be found fault with for having sent the reply in the email ID of the petitioner shown in the request itself.