The assessment came to be finalised by the 1st respondent as per Ext.P3 order dated 23.09.2014, fixing huge liability, which in turn is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the specific case projected by the petitioner who is a builder, as pointed out vide Ext.P2 reply submitted in response to Ext.P1 pre-assessment notice, has not been properly considered by the Appellate Authority while passing Ext.P3 order. The learned counsel points out that the building complex has been constructed making use of funds from different sources. But, sale has not been complected in respect of the 306 units out of the total of 624 and as such, there is absolutely no rhyme or reason for including the cost of the goods, ie., the purchase price, for finalising the assessment. Particulars of the units, which were not sold, were specifically brought to the notice of the Assessing W.P.(C) No.33478 of 2014 2 Authority vide Ext.P2 as given in a tabulated form. This being the position, the impugned order is not correct or sustainable and is liable to be intercepted.
3. The learned counsel also points out that, met with the situation the petitioner has approached the 1st respondent by filing Ext.P4 petition, invoking the power and procedure under Section 66 of the KVAT Act, 2003, to have the obvious mistake/ defect rectified. The prayer is only to cause the same to be considered within a reasonable time.
4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
5. In the above circumstances, the 1st respondent is hereby directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 application, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate, within 'six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Coercive proceedings, if any, shall be kept in abeyance till such time.
The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment, along W.P.(C) No.33478 of 2014 3 with a copy of the writ petition, before the 1st respondent, for further steps.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sp