M/S. Doorcas Market Makers (Pvt.) … vs The State Of Kerala on 18 December, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 2873 of 2009()


1. M/S. DOORCAS MARKET MAKERS (PVT.) LTD.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT),

3. TEAM OF INSPECTORS,

                For Petitioner  :SMT.K.LATHA

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN

 Dated :18/12/2009

 O R D E R
                    C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
                               V.K.MOHANAN, JJ.
               ....................................................................
                        Writ Appeal No.2873 of 2009
               ....................................................................
              Dated this the 18th day of December, 2009.

                                      JUDGMENT

Ramachandran Nair, J.

Heard Senior counsel Sri.V.Ramachandran appearing for the

appellant and the Government Pleader for the respondents.

2. The appellant is a manufacturer of soap, which claimed

concessional rate of tax on the ground that soap manufactured and sold

is handmade soap. When the question came up before us in revision,

the Division Bench felt that the question whether soap is handmade or

machine made is to be considered with reference to the factual position

which will be revealed only if an inspection is conducted in the factory

where soap is made. In order to avoid controversy, this court directed

inspection to be carried out by a committee to be appointed by the

Commissioner. Based on the direction issued by this court, the

committee appointed by the Commissioner conducted inspection and

prepared a report. Based on the report, the Assessing Officer has

issued pre-assessment notice, against which W.P.(C) is filed

2

challenging basically the findings in the report. The learned Single

Judge held that if the appellant has any objection against the factual

findings in the report, it is for the appellant to raise the objections in

reply to pre-assessment notice for the Assessing Officer to consider the

same. The learned Single Judge did not, therefore, consider appellant’s

objection against the report and W.P.(C) was disposed of leaving

freedom to the appellant to raise objection against the findings in the

report before the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment. It is

against this judgment the appellant has filed this appeal.

3. After hearing both sides, we do not find any justification for

this court to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge

because appellant cannot be permitted to continue another round of

litigation against the report which is nothing but data gathered by a

committee after inspection of appellant’s factory. If findings are

incorrect, it is for the appellant to raise objection and if any

clarification is required from the committee members, the Assessing

Officer may call for the same. On the reply to pre-assessment notice,

the Assessing Officer will necessarily hear the appellant and allow

3

them to adduce evidence to substantiate their case. Writ Appeal is

consequently dismissed but with the above observations.

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge

V.K.MOHANAN
Judge
pms