JOHN GEEVARGHESE KURUVILA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court found that the petitioner's representative had appeared before the Assessing Authority on multiple occasions (December 12, 20, and 24, 2018) and had submitted all relevant materials, including a reply (Ext.P6). The Court noted that Ext.P6 did not contain any request for a further hearing. The Court reasoned that authorities cannot be expected to prolong proceedings indefinitely in the name of additional or extended opportunities. It distinguished the present case from K.T Thomas vs. Agrl. Income Tax officer, where the assessee was given only six days to file objections, which was deemed inadequate. In this case, the Court found that the petitioner had sufficient opportunity. The Court dismissed the writ petition but left it open for the petitioner to approach the appellate authority if advised.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, John Geevarghese Kuruvila, an assessee, filed a writ petition challenging assessment orders for assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. The petitioner contended that these orders violated the principles of natural justice due to an inadequate opportunity to defend himself. He argued that after submitting replies (Ext.P6 series), the assessing authority did not provide a further opportunity for him to present his case. The revenue, represented by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, countered that the petitioner had ample opportunity to defend himself and that the issue concerned the merits rather than a denial of opportunity. The assessment orders were passed on December 28, 2018, following a show-cause notice issued on December 6, 2018, and multiple hearings attended by the petitioner's authorized representative.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the assessment orders for AY 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, violate the principles of natural justice by denying the assessee an adequate opportunity to defend himself? Assessee's Contentions: - The assessment orders are vitiated by a violation of natural justice. - The petitioner conducted himself bona fide and with diligence. - The opportunities provided were inadequate due to case complications. - After submitting Ext.P6 series of replies, the assessing authority failed to provide a further opportunity for defense. - Relied on K.T Thomas vs. Agrl. Income Tax officer, 1989 (1) KLT 909. Revenue's Contentions: - The petitioner had more than ample opportunity to defend himself. - The distinction between denial of opportunity and inadequate opportunity is crucial. - Even if the allegations of inadequacy were true, they pertain to the merits of the case. - There was no denial of opportunity, let alone a violation of natural justice.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT The petitioner, an assessee, suffered the Exts.P1, P2 and P3 assessment orders for 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 respectively. He assails those orders in this writ petition, on the grounds that they suffer from the vise of violating the principles of natural justice.
Sri. T. M Sreedharan, the learned Senior Counsel, ably supplemented by Smt. Divya Ravindran, has strenuously contended that the petitioner has all along conducted himself bona fide and with diligence. According to the learned Senior Counsel, whatever opportunity the petitioner had, that was proved inadequate because of the complications involved in the case. To elaborate, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that after the petitioner’s submitted the Ext.P6 series of replies, the assessing authority has not provided further opportunity for the petitioner to defend himself.
So the learned Senior Counsel wants the Court to set aside the Exts.P1, P2 and P3 assessment orders and remand the matter to -3- the assessing authority, with a further direction that the authority petitioner's allegations were taken on the face value, they would only concern the merits. But, by no stretch, can this Court, according to Sri.Joseph, conclude there has been a denial of opportunity, much less any violation of principles of natural justice.
Heard Sri. T. M. Sridharan, the learned Senior Counsel, and Smt. Divya Ravindran, the learned counsel for the petitioner; and Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel, for the respondents.
To begin with, on 06.12.2018 the assessing authority issued
-4- a show-cause notice about the transactions that took place during the financial year 2012-2013. Later, based on the notice of hearing, the petitioner authorised its auditor to appear before the Assessing Authority. He did appear before the Assessing Authority on 12.12.2018, on 20.12.2018, and eventually on 24.12.2018. 7. The petitioner's representative has not only appeared before the Assessing Authority but also placed all the relevant material. Then on 28.12.2018, the Assessing Authority passed the impugned orders.
In the above background of chronological events, Smt. Divya Ravindran has contended that after the petitioner’s submitting the Ext.P6 reply, the Assessing Authority ought to have given one more opportunity of hearing; instead, he passed the orders straight away.
Seen from the record, the petitioner's Ext.P6 reply contains no further request from the petitioner that he be given another opportunity of hearing. I reckon after hearing the petitioner's representative on more than one occasion and after going through
-5- the petitioner's reply and the material he produced, the Assessing Income Tax officer, 1989 (1 ) KLT 909 , has on facts observed: “In the counter affidavit dated 4th august, 1987 filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated that a pre-assessment notice dated 1-2-1983 estimating the income was served on the assesse on 25-2-1983. the last date for filing reply to the proposals made in the pre-assessment notice was on 3-3-1983. Sri. M.J Udayavarma Raja, a sales tax practitioner, filed a petition date 7-3-1983 on behalf of the petitioner and that petition was received on 9-3-1983 after the assessment c2828ompleted on 3-31983. It is accordingly stated that the objections filed on 9-3-1983 could not be completed before the assessment orders were passed on 3-3-1983. the pre- assessment notice required the assessee to file objections onor before 3-31983. the notice was served on the assessee only on 25-2-1983. the assessee was given only 6 days' time to file objections to the proposal s contained in the per-asssessment notice. The time allowed was too short and the assessment orders were passed on 3-3-1983 even before the expiry.”
-6-
I understand that the learned Division Bench considered the temporal aspect present in that case: the petitioner there was given only 6 days to file its reply. And the court has found it to be inadequate. The judgment, in fact, concerns no extended opportunity after many rounds of hearing.
I, therefore, dismiss the writ petition. Nevertheless, I leave it open for the petitioner to approach the appellate authority if so advised. No order on costs. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE JS
-7-
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- Vandemataram Projects Private Limited vs. Raipur Development AuthorityChhattisgarh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026
