REJI KURIAN Versus THE STATE TAX OFFICER GOODS & SERVICE TAXES, MATTANCHERRY, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GOODS & SERVICE TAXES, (FORMERLY COMMERCIAL TAXES) AND THE COMMISSIOENR OF GOODS & SERVICE TAXES (FORMERLY COMMERCIAL TAXES) , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 2018 (6) TMI 1129 – KERALA HIGH COURT – 2018 (13) G. S. T. L. 260 (Ker.) – Assessment of escaped turnover – Service of notice – It is the case of the petitioner that there was no communication thereafter to the firm from the Department – principles of Natural Justice – Held that:- True, in so far as one of the partners of the firm is doing business with others in the very same premises, they must have received Ext.P3 notice. But, that does not mean that they should always get the notices sent in
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
he firm to the first respondent in this connection. It is also stated that one of the partners of the firm was running similar business thereafter in the same premises in partnership with others. It is also stated by the petitioner that later, during February 2012, proceedings have been initiated by the first respondent against the firm of the petitioner under Section 67 (1)(c) of the Act. Ext.P3 is the notice issued in this regard. In response to Ext.P3 notice, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 reply stating that the firm is no longer doing business since 31.07.2011. It is the case of the petitioner that there was no communication thereafter to the firm from the Department. While so, it is stated that the petitioner has received notice under
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ner to the first respondent. In the light of Exts.P1 and P4 communications, according to me, if fresh proceedings are contemplated against the firm of the petitioner, certainly, notice should have been issued in the personal addresses of the petitioner and the partners of the firm, which are very much available with the Department. Instead, it is seen that notice has been issued in the business address of the firm. 4. The learned Government Pleader points out that Ext.P3 notice was issued to the firm only in their business address and the firm has responded to the said notice. It is submitted that in so far as the firm has received Ext.P3 notice earlier sent, they cannot be heard to contend that they have not received the notice issued prio
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =