IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 27473 of 2008(U)
1. T.N.MUMTHAZ
... Petitioner
Vs
1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER
... Respondent
2. TAHSILDAR (RR)
For Petitioner :SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :06/11/2008
O R D E R
K.M. JOSEPH, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 27473 OF 2008 U
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 6th day of November, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner challenges Exts.P7 and P8 orders of
assessment passed under the KGST Act. A perusal of the same
would show that though pre-assessment notice is issued, apart
from Form-50 which was issued earlier both were returned
unserved and the assessments were completed.
2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Government Pleader. Learned counsel for petitioner points out
that the notice came to be issued in the office address but the
factory has been closed. It is pointed out that the notice could
have been affected to the residential address of the petitioner. It
is stated that the factory was originally functioning where the
petitioner was residing. Subsequently, it was shifted to the place
where the notice sought to be served. The petitioner has ceased
his partnership in 2006 and there was a reconstitution. It is further
pointed out that in the facts of this case, the petitioner is actually
entitled to the benefit of exemption and the exemption was given
WPC.27473/08
: 2 :
due to the credit and the credit has been given in 2003 and there
is no liability for both years.
3. Learned Government Pleader points out that the
address sought to be served was the address given by the
petitioner. Service can be affected under Rule 63 in the methods
which are enumerated under clauses (a) to (d) as held by this
court. Notice can be affixed only if service by methods under
clauses (a) to (c) are attempted. Whatever that be, having regard
to the totality of facts, I would think that this is a case where the
assessments are to be redone. I feel that notice should have
been served on the petitioner and assessments have to be
completed with opportunity to the petitioner. Accordingly, Exts.P7
and P8 are quashed and the 1st respondent will complete the
assessment in accordance with law within six weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)
aks