TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 123
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent : 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 petitions, as assessees, suffered adverse assessment orders. It was on the premise that some of the C-forms they produced are bogus. The assessments relate to 2014-15. Later, the Deputy Commissioner, Malappuram, issued the Ext.P2 notice under Section 56 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act). It is a proposal to cancel the Ext.P1 assessment order and for suo motu revision. Eventually, the Deputy Commissioner passed the Ext.P3 order, setting aside the Ext.P1 assessment order and requirin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o him, though the official has informed the petitioners that a copy was attached, what he sent was only a tabular form of the C-Form details, but not the very report. 6. Dr. Thushara James, the Government Pleader, on the other hand, submits that the Deputy Commissioner's Ext.P3 order setting aside the Ext.P1 assessment order has attained finality. Now what remains is the Ext.P8 assessment under Section 25(1) of the Act. The petitioners, according to her, have an efficacious alternative remedy of filing a statutory appeal. On the question of the principles of natural justice, she contends that the petitioners were given numerous opportunities to establish before the assessing authority that the C-forms are genuine, but they have failed. As ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioners, in fact, produced replies from the authorities of various other States testifying to the genuineness of other unrelated C-forms. But about the C-forms in dispute, there is no material. 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. Put explicitly, if a document is suspected, the source of suspicion is of no consequence, even a whisper of doubt may cast a cloud on the genuineness of an instrument. Then, it is the originator of the instrument that should dispel the clouds of suspicion. In this context, I am constrained to ....