ELENJIKKAL DEVASSIKUTTY REJU vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP(C)/9267/2023HC KeralaKLHC01021216202320 March 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court admitted the writ petition and noted that the standing counsel for the respondents took notice. However, the Court observed that the requests for adjournment were made after the date fixed for response. Consequently, the Court held that the issue of not affording an opportunity of hearing could not be considered in the writ petition. The Court directed that this grievance would have to be taken up before the statutory authority in appeal. The writ petition was accordingly closed, preserving the petitioner's right to prefer an appeal against the appellate order (Ext.P5). No specific finding was made on the assessment order itself, as the matter was relegated to the appellate forum.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Elenjikkal Devassikutty Reju, proprietor of M/s. Elenjikkal Agencies, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order (Ext.P1) confirmed by an appellate order (Ext.P5). The primary contention was that the assessment order was passed without providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard and by disregarding a request for adjournment made by the Chartered Accountant. The court noted that the requests for adjournment were made after the deadline for response had passed. The petitioner sought to challenge the assessment and appellate orders through this writ petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order was passed without affording the petitioner an adequate opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice, and consequently, whether the appellate order confirming it is sustainable? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was issued without hearing them and that their request for adjournment was ignored. They relied on the principle that a fair hearing is a fundamental right. Revenue's Contention: The standing counsel for the respondents took notice. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue regarding the merits of the adjournment request or the opportunity for hearing, beyond acknowledging their representation.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 9267 OF 2023 PETITIONER: ELENJIKKAL DEVASSIKUTTY REJU PROPRIETOR, M/S. ELENJIKKAL AGENCIES, XVI/158A, CHOWKA ROAD, ELINJIPRA P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680721 BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON R.SREEJITH K.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2 (1), RANGE 2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, S.T. NAGAR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001 2 NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE DELHI, PIN - 110001 REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 9267 OF 2023 2 T.R. RAVI, J. -------------------------------------------- W. P. (C). No. 9267 of 2023 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of March, 2023

JUDGMENT Admit. Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents.

The petitioner has challenged Ext.P1 assessment order as confirmed by Ext.P5 appellate order. The main ground of challenge is that the assessment order was issued without hearing the petitioner and ignoring the request for adjournment submitted by the Chartered Accountant. It would appear from the acknowledgments produced that the requests for adjournments were after the date fixed for response.

I do not think the question as to not affording an opportunity of hearing can hence be considered in this writ petition and the same would have to be taken up before the statutory authority in appeal. This writ petition is hence closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to prefer an appeal against Ext.P5 appellate order. T.R. RAVI

JUDGE Pn

WP(C) NO. 9267 OF 2023 3

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9267/2023 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DTD. 06-12-2017 Exhibit P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THRISSUR DTD. 29-01-2018 Exhibit P3 COPY OF ADJOURNMENT REQUEST UPLOADED IN THE DEPARTMENT WEBSITE DTD. 06-01-2023 Exhibit P4 COPY OF ADJOURNMENT REQUEST UPLOADED IN THE DEPARTMENT WEBSITE DTD. 25-01-2023 Exhibit P5 COPYOF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 02-03-2023

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →