VIBGYOR DIGITAL COLOUR LAB vs. THE STATE TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/2867/2018HC KeralaKLHC01034457201816 March 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI4 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. It quashed the assessment order for the assessment year 2009-10 (Ext.P6). The court directed the first respondent to issue fresh orders on the proposal referred to in Ext.P6, but only after providing the petitioner with an opportunity of being heard. The court specified that these fresh orders should be issued within four months from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment. The reasoning for quashing the order was based on the petitioner's assertion of lack of notice and the assessment being barred by limitation, coupled with the precedent set in a similar case for the assessment year 2011-12.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vibgyor Digital Colour Lab, is challenging an assessment order for the assessment year 2009-10. The petitioner claims the assessment was completed without issuing them a notice and that it is barred by limitation. The judgment notes that a similar issue concerning the assessment year 2011-12 was previously adjudicated by the same court in W.P.(C.) No. 2384/2018. In that prior case, the court had allowed the writ petition, set aside the assessment order, and directed the first respondent to pass fresh orders. Given the similarity of facts, the current writ petition is also disposed of in a similar manner.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order for the assessment year 2009-10 was passed without issuing notice to the petitioner, and if so, is it liable to be quashed? (Question of fact and law) 2. Whether the assessment order for the assessment year 2009-10 is barred by limitation? (Question of law) The petitioner contended that the assessment was completed without notice and is time-barred. The revenue's contentions are not recorded in the judgment. The judgment does not explicitly name any specific provisions of the law that were argued by either side, but the issues raised pertain to procedural fairness and statutory time limits for assessments.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 2867 OF 2018 PETITIONER:

VIBGYOR DIGITAL COLOUR LAB PERUMBAVOOR, REPRESENTED BY FORMER MANAGING PARTNER, REJI KURIAN, THURUTHIYIL HOUSE, ALLAPRA P.O., PERUMBAVOOR-683556. BY ADVS. SRI.AJI V.DEV SRI.M.G.SHAJI RESPONDENTS:

THE STATE TAX OFFICER GOODS & SERVICE TAXES, (FORMERLY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER), WORKS CONTRACT & LUXURY TAX, TAX COMPLEX, BAZAR ROAD, MATTANCHERRY -682002.

THE STATE TAX OFFICER GOODS & SERVICE TAXES, (FORMERLY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER), 1ST CIRCLE, MINI CIVIL STATION, PERUMBAVOOR-683542.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GOODS & SERVICE TAXES, (FORMERLY COMMERCIAL TAXES), TAX COMPLEX, BAZAR ROAD, MATTANCHERRY -682002.

THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PERUMBAVOOR.

THE COMMISSIONER OF GOODS SERVICE TAXES (FORMERLY COMMERCIAL TAXES), TAX TOWER, KILLIPPALAM, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695002. BY ADV.THUSHARA JAMES, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

T.R. RAVI, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C.) No.2867 of 2018 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of March, 2023 JUDGMENT The issue relates to an assessment which was completed for the year 2009-10. According to the petitioner, the assessment was completed without notice to the petitioner and the assessment is also barred by limitation. 2. The assessment of the petitioner with regard to the assessment year 2011-12 was subject matter of W.P.(C.) No.2384/2018 before this Court and this Court had by judgment dated 06.02.2018 allowed the writ petition, set aside the assessment order and directed the 1st respondent to pass fresh orders. The facts being similar, this writ petition can also be disposed of in the same manner. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P6

assessment order for the year 2009-10 is quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to issue fresh orders on the proposal referred to in Ext.P6, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Orders shall be issued within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- T.R.RAVI JUDGE SKP/16-03

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2867/2018 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER INTIMATING STOPPAGE OF BUSINESS DATED 02.08.2011. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE NEWLY CONSTITUTED FIRM DATED 02.09.2011. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 67(1) OF THE ACT TO THE STOPPED FIRM DATED 07.02.2012. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FILED AGAINST EXHIBIT P3 DATED 07.03.2012. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON THE STOPPED FIRM FOR 2011-12 DATED 20.03.2017. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON THE STOPPED FIRM FOR 2009-10 DATED 06.03.2017. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →