Loading...

B.M.Aboobacker vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 23 March, 2009

Kerala High Court
B.M.Aboobacker vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 23 March, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 805 of 2009(U)


1. B.M.ABOOBACKER
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, TALIPARAMBA
                       ...       Respondent

2. KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

3. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.)

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH

 Dated :23/03/2009

 O R D E R
                            K.M. JOSEPH, J.

              ````````````````````````````````````````````````````
                     W.P.(C) No. 805 OF 2009 U
              ````````````````````````````````````````````````````
               Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2009

                            J U D G M E N T

Petitioner challenges Exts.P3 and P5. A direction is

sought to the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on

Ext.P9 after hearing the petitioner. Ext.P3 is an order of

assessment under section 17(3) of the KGST Act. The petitioner

preferred Ext.P4 appeal. Petitioner also applied for exemption

from payment of tax which was rejected by Ext.P5 order. In

Ext.P3, it is stated as follows:

” The pre-assessment notice under

section 17(3) of KGST read with section 17(D)

was duly served upon the assessee calling

objection if any and hearing. In response to the

notice the assessee requested one week time to

give reply to the notice and granted five days

time to file the reply. But the assessee did not

turn up.”

2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has indeed

filed objection. Learned Government Pleader, after verifying the

file, would categorically submit that it is correct that the petitioner

WPC.805/09
: 2 :

had filed objection. Therefore, this is a case where even though

the petitioner had filed objection, the assessment is completed as

the petitioner did not turn up. Yet another fatal defect in the

proceedings is that Ext.P3 purports to be an assessment under

section 17D but the order is passed by one officer. An affidavit is

filed by the Divisional Forest Officer.

3. In such circumstances, I feel that this is a case where

Ext.P3 is to be quashed and the matter is to be redone.

Accordingly, Ext.P3 is quashed and the matter will be redone in

accordance with law.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)
aks

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information