2019 (1) TMI 123 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Challenges to KVAT reassessment order dismissed for lack of evidence; petitioners advised to pursue statutory appeal.

The High Court of Kerala dismissed the writ petitions challenging a reassessment order issued under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. The petitioners claimed ... Validity of assessment order - Bogus C-forms - case of petitioner is that the authorities have violated the principles of natural justice and have denied essential information to the petitioners - lack of power to reassess the petitioners' liability for the year 2014- 2015 - Held that:- As the petitioners alone could vouch for the genuineness of the C-forms, I reckon the petitioners' insistence on the special investigation report serves no purpose. The burden, in fact, squarely lies on the petitioners to prove that the C-forms are genuine. It is the originator of the instrument that should dispel the clouds of suspicion. In this context, it is held that there is no infraction of principles of natural justice. The Ext.P8 is an order against which the petitioners have a statutory remedy, and it is efficacious, too - the writ petitions closed holding that the petitioners, if advised, can approach the appellate authority and raise all pleas as they have done before this Court. Issues:Adverse assessment orders based on alleged bogus C-forms, Ext.P2 notice for cancellation of assessment orders, Ext.P3 setting aside assessment orders, Ext.P8 reassessment order challenged in writ petitions, Violation of natural justice in Ext.P8, Authority's power to reassess under 101st Constitutional amendment.Analysis:The High Court of Kerala considered two writ petitions involving adverse assessment orders due to alleged bogus C-forms for the year 2014-15. The Deputy Commissioner issued Ext.P2 notice proposing to cancel the assessment orders and for suo motu revision, leading to Ext.P3 setting aside the original assessment orders. The petitioners challenged Ext.P3 in a revision and filed writ petitions, obtaining a stay on further proceedings until the revision was decided. Subsequently, the revision petition was dismissed, and the assessing authority conducted reassessment under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act through Ext.P8, which was challenged in the writ petitions.The petitioners argued that Ext.P8 violated natural justice and lacked authority to reassess due to the 101st Constitutional amendment. The Court noted the petitioners' claim of denial of essential information, specifically the special investigation report. The Government Pleader contended that the Ext.P3 order had finality, leaving only the Ext.P8 assessment. She emphasized the petitioners' opportunity to appeal and the burden of proof on them regarding the C-forms' genuineness.The Court deliberated on the natural justice issue raised by the petitioners, focusing on their alleged lack of access to crucial information affecting their defense in the assessment proceedings. It was highlighted that the burden to prove the C-forms' authenticity rested with the petitioners, and their insistence on the special investigation report was deemed unnecessary. The Court concluded that there was no violation of natural justice, as the petitioners failed to provide material evidence to support the genuineness of the disputed C-forms.While both parties presented detailed arguments on the merits, the Court refrained from delving into them, emphasizing the availability of an alternative statutory remedy for the petitioners. The judgment held that Ext.P8 could be challenged through the statutory appeal process, advising the petitioners to raise their pleas before the appellate authority, similar to those presented in the writ petitions. Consequently, the Court closed the writ petitions without imposing any costs, allowing the petitioners to pursue their case through the appropriate appellate channels.