MS. PKL TRADERS Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX-II, MALAPPURAM, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, MALAPPURAM, COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI
VAT and Sales Tax
2019 (1) TMI 123 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 12-11-2018
WP (C). No. 36592 of 2018
CST, VAT & Sales Tax
MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
For The Petitioner : ADVS. SRI. PREMJIT NAGENDRAN AND SRI. P. RAGHUNATH
For The Respondent : DR THUSHARA JAMES, GP. SRI THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL, SC
JUDGMENT
As both these writ petitions involve a common issue, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The petitioners in both the writ
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ment, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions.
4. Sri Premjit Nagendran, the petitioners' counsel, has strenuously contended that the Ext.P8 suffers on two counts: (1) the authorities have violated the principles of natural justice and have denied essential information to the petitioners; (2) the authorities lack the power to reassess the petitioners' liability for the year 2014- 2015, for under the 101st Constitutional amendment, the very KVAT Act has ceased to exists.
5. Sri Nagendran has drawn my attention to the Ext.P2 notice. The notice informs the petitioners that the authorities came to know about the alleged bogus C-forms, based on the special investigation the Commercial Taxes Department conducted. According to him, despite the petitioners' specific request, the authorities have not supplied a copy of the special investigation report. In this context, Sri Nagendran further draws my attention to the Ext.P4 reply by the Assistant Commissioner. According to
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
. To begin with, if I rule on the alternative remedy, I must not advert to the merits. For this Court's observations, even incidental, may affect the petitioners' rights before the appellate forum. Here is an exception.
9. The petitioners have pleaded about the alleged violation of the natural justice. That plea taken on its face value, the constraint of the alternative remedy does not affect the adjudication. But once the Court rules negatively on that plea-the plea of natural justice-then it ill behooves for me to rule on the merits, too. Let the statutory forums have their jurisdiction.
10. So, first, I will confine my discussion to the alleged vice of the authorities' violating the principle of natural justice. If the finding turns out positive, then that obviates further adjudication; if negative, I will relegate the petitioners to their statutory remedies.
11. The petitioners' plea is that they were denied access to a vital piece of information, and that disabled them from eff
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =