The controversy raised in the above writ petition primarily, is the violation of principles of natural justice. Petitioner is aggrieved with the issuance of Ext.P5 series of orders of penalty without affording an opportunity for hearing. When the matter was posted for admission, the learned Government Pleader was directed to file a counter affidavit. The essential contention raised in the counter affidavit is in paragraph 3 which is extracted hereunder. “It is submitted that notice Under Section 67(1) dated 6.10.2012 was issued to the petitioner and was served. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner requested time vide letter dated 17.10.2012 and 20.11.2012.
Subsequently reply was filed by the petitioner on 20.12.2012 with a request for personal hearing. However, the officer who had initiated the proceedings was transferred from this office and I assumed charge on 3.1.2014. On verification of the files it was understood that the proceedings were not completed, I issue notice dated 14.2.2014 for personal hearing through E-Mail in the E-Mail ID shown in the reply dated 20.12.2012. The E- Mail was successfully delivered.
It is further submitted that as per Section 88(e) of the KVAT Act, 2003 service of notice through E-Mail is also one of the mode of service of notice. The petitioner is the largest exporter of the software services and is one among the Top Ten IT Service Company in the world. There is no violation of natural justice. The respondent has complied with all the statutory requirements. The petitioner is not entitled to get any reliefs as prayed for.”
2. Admittedly, the proceedings were pending from 2012 onwards. A notice was issued and received by the petitioner and the petitioner had also filed a reply seeking an opportunity for personal hearing as is evidenced by the counter affidavit filed by the Officer, after looking into the records. It is the contention of the Officer that on 2014 when the present incumbent took charge, he issued a notice in the e-Mail ID of the petitioner as permitted by Section 88(e) of the KVAT Act, 2003, and service having been effected, the petitioner was bound to reply to the same or attend a personal hearing so fixed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner however, specifically points out the provision by which e-Mail has been permitted; wherein the Department is bound to and the same to the specific e-Mail ID issued by the Department to the assessee. E-mail alleged to have been send, as produced in the counter affidavit, according to the petitioner, is in the personal ID of the petitioner and not the ID supplied by the Department the former of which is non- operational.
4. In any event, this Court need not go into all these controversies, especially since it is evident that a proceeding pending from 2012 was revived in 2014 and a notice send through e- Mail, and the penalty orders passed without giving an opportunity for hearing on the first date of intimation itself. In such circumstances, for the sole reason of violation of principles of natural justice, Ext.P5 series of orders are set aside.
5. The petitioner shall appear before the 1st respondent on 16.6.2014 at 11.00 am, and the 1st respondent shall permit the petitioner to file objections as also afford an opportunity of personal hearing. The date fixed for personal hearing shall be intimated on 16.6.2014 itself, to the petitioner and acknowledgment received. 1st respondent shall conclude the proceedings after considering the objections of the petitioner as also affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner within a period of two months there from.
Writ petition disposed of. Parties are left to suffer their costs.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, Judge Mrcs