AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 474
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....leader for respondents. 2. The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 notice dated 21.11.2018 and Ext.P7 order dated 15.01.2019 as being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 265 and 300A of Constitution of India and prays for quashing Exts.P2 and P7. The learned counsel appearing on either side have addressed the Court on the alleged violation of principles of natural justice in making Ext.P7 order. In other words, the challenge is confined to Ext.P7 dated 15.01.2019 and not to Ext.P2 notice. The circumstances relevant for disposing of the writ petition are stated thus: 3. The petitioner is a dealer registered under Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short 'the Act') and asserts to be a partnership firm. The subject writ petition is c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respondent through Ext.P4 has made available the details sought for by the petitioner in Ext.P3. The petitioner, referring to the details furnished in Ext.P4, vide Ext.P5 dated 28.12.2018 submitted the reply. For convenience and immediate reference the relevant portion of Ext.P5 is excerpted hereunder: " 3. It is humbly submitted that M/s. Unidec Foundations Pvt.Ltd have discharged the entire tax liability and has also submitted Form 20H. Copies of Form 20H submitted by M/s. Unidec Foundations Pvt.Ltd is also attached herewith for your reference. Hence, it is amply clear that there exists no liability against the Assessee. 4. In light of all that is mentioned above, it is humbly submitted that your good-self may be please....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....struction and sub contract expense do not attract KVAT payment. This is not correct. Being an awarder, the dealer had the liability to deduct TDS while making payment to the sub contractors and remit it to the Government Exchequer. The dealer has not done it here. 20H declarations in respect of the sub contract payment were also not submitted. Most importantly, the said sub contract payment was not declared by the dealer in the returns filed. Hence the contention of the dealer is rejected and the assessment proposal in this regard is confirmed. The next defect was the difference between the interstate purchase value declared by the dealer for Rs. 1,28,28,840.00 and the actual interstate purchase value obtained from the departmental....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....such an exercise is undertaken by this Court in the judicial review under Article 226, the review amounts to discharging the function of appellate authority under the Act. She vehemently contends that the principles of natural justice are not applied in an abstract manner and the facts already noted do not warrant interference under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Therefore the petitioner ought to workout the remedy by filing appeal against Ext.P7 with all available grounds including violation of principles of natural justice. She prays for dismissing the writ petition. 10. The rival submission of the counsel appearing on either sides are noted and the issue for consideration is whether Ext.P7 is illegal and vitiated by the breach ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xt.P5 are adverted to in Ext.P7 and an adverse finding on the contention raised by the petitioner is recorded and assessment order is made. The second respondent does not dispute that the petitioner is entitled to opportunity of hearing but states that the opportunity already provided for would suffice. Principles of natural justice or procedural fairness ought not to be decided on abstract application of the requirement. This ground of challenge is available subject to petitioner satisfying the Court that on account of an omission by the respondents at one or the other stages of enquiry the rights of the party are adversely affected resulting in fastening liability on a party appearing before respondents. The Court then is justified in pre....