W.P.(C)No.28819 of 2014:
The petitioner is challenging Ext.P3 assessment order, whereby huge liability to the tune of Rs.6,65,047/- has been mulcted upon the shoulders of the petitioner. On receipt of Ext.P1 pre-assessment notice, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application for adjournment for production of Books of Accounts, which however was not granted and assessment was finalised by way of Ext.P3, which, according to the petitioner is per se wrong and arbitrary in all respects and hence the challenge.
2. During the course of hearing , the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already approached the appellate authority by filing appeal and since coercive proceedings are being pursued against the petitioner, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing W.P(C)No.28862 of 2014 for giving appropriate directions to the appellate authority.
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits that this is a case where several instances of purchase suppression as well as sales suppression are involved as discussed in Ext.P3 order dated 11.07.2014, which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petitiion.
4. The correctness of inference is sought to be rebutted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner stating that the correct factual position could have been brought to light from the Books of Accounts and that unfortunately, the same could not be produced as it was kept in the audit office at Kottakkal; and hence the request for adjournment was made.
5. On going through the impugned order, this Court finds that the reason stated by the petitioner for granting adjournment for producing the Books of Accounts was turned down, saying that it was a 'false reason', in view of the extent of turn over for the year 2012-13; for which no audit was necessary and hence not acceptable. The learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner being a Company incorporated under the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, audit of accounts was very much necessary and denial of opportunity is totally against the principles of natural justice. It is also pointed out that no prejudice whatsoever would have been resulted to the respondents by granting adjournment for enabling the petitioner to produce the Books of accounts. The learned Counsel also submits that the petitioner is ready to prove bonafides by effecting a portion of the deposit for causing the matter to be re- considered by the assessing authority.
6. In the above circumstance, this Court finds that the ultimate relief, if at all any, that could be desired and obtained by the petitioner in the appeal is only a remand to have the matter finalised with reference to the relevant records. Considering the particular facts and circumstances, this Court finds that an opportunity could be given to the petitioner on terms. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs within ten days for re-consideration of the matter by the first respondent/Commercial Tax Officer. Subject to this, Ext.P3 will stand set aside and the first respondent/Commercial Tax Officer is directed to re-consider the matter, passing a reasoned order, after affording an opportunity to produce Books of Accounts and hearing to the petitioner. The said exercise shall be completed at the earliest, at any rate, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
W.P.(C)No.28862 of 2014:
7. In view of interception made by this Court causing the assessment to be re-considered, this Court finds that Ext.P2 appeal preferred by the petitioner before the appellate authority has become redundant and that the same does not require to be acted upon.
Both the matters are disposed of accordingly.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk