TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 985
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appeals under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, for short, "the KVAT Act", are against an order of clarification issued under section 94 of that Act. The learned senior counsel Smt. Nalini Chidambaram appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the writ petition at the outset referred to Comptroller and Auditor General of India v. K. S. Jagannathan [1986] 2 SCC 679 to persuade us to decide once for all on the question which was the subject-matter of the clarification. On the basis of that precedent, she rightly points out that the High Court would be within its power to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary directions in order to prevent injustice in terms of the statutory public duty in relation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cular regard to the law laid by the apex court in different precedents referred to therein, including Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes [2008] 15 VST 10 (SC). Having regard to the nature of the contentions raised in ground A of the captioned writ petition, we have thoroughly examined the file of the establishment that has led to the impugned clarification. Remember, by the aforenoted judgment dated June 10, 2008, this court had remitted the issue for consideration of the Commissioner, essentially de novo. The Department file shows that the Commissioner had recorded on January 15, 2012 that there was some hearing and that samples were given. We are not sure whether the said entry is actually on January 15, 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o holidays in between them. In the common course of human conduct, we can fairly envision the preparation that Mr. Anil Kumar, advocate, Ernakulam, could have to make his effective appearance at 10.30 a.m. on September 26, 2012 before the authority. We cannot but therefore, agree to the pleadings on behalf of the appellants in the appeals and the petitioner in the writ petition that there was no effective hearing and all that Mr. Anil Kumar could have reasonably and probably done was to request for an adjournment. We see that the files indicate that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has been prompted by the Deputy Commissioner (Law) at Ernakulam to expeditiously decide on the matter. The Deputy Commissioner also appears to have indicated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Nut [2007] 6 VST 532 (SC); [2007] 4 SCC 155. We do not express anything in either way on any matter touching the merit of the rival contentions, having regard to the nature of the conclusions arrived at on the question of hearing. In the result, the O.T. appeals and the writ petition are ordered setting aside the impugned order and leaving open all issues enabling the competent authority in terms of section 94 of the KVAT Act to decide on the question as to the issuance of clarification following due procedure, after hearing necessary parties in terms of the prescriptions contained in that statutory provision. We are sure that the appropriate authority will expedite a final decision in the matter and issue its decision within a reasona....