IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2010 / 14TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23050 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.WINGS AUTOMOTIVE COMPANY, CC NO.1710,KANNAHTHODATH LANE,EDAPPALLY, COCHIN-682024,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.CLITUS PAUL. BY ADV. MR. TOMSON T.EMMANUEL RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER,SQUAD NO.1, COMMERCIAL TAXES,EDAPPALLY,COCHIN-682024. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES,IST CIRCLE,KALAMASSERY-680 024. 3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,TAXES DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 23050 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 5th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Ext. P5 notice issued by the second respondent under Section 25 (1) of the KVAT Act. Many a ground has been raised in the Writ Petition challenging the said notice, also with specific reference to Sections 22 (2), 22 (9) and 22 (10). There is also a grievance for the petitioner that, the proceedings are likely to be finalized by the second respondent forthwith, on filing reply if any, without giving a further opportunity of hearing. The matter is liable to be finalized, according to the petitioner, only after enabling the petitioner to file the revised returns under Sections 22 (10) of the Act for the period from April, 2009 to November, 2009. It is also the case of the petitioner that, it has to be restricted in respect of the period when offence was detected and not for the whole year, simultaneously stating that, the petitioner is having requisite proof to substantiate the contentions. 2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that, no interference is warranted at the present stage, since the notice has been issued to the petitioner only to enable the petitioner to be present with relevant records. W.P. (C) No. 23050 of 2010 : 2 : 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that, by virtue of the 'first proviso' to Section 25 (1) of the Act, it has been clearly stipulated that, before making an assessment, the dealer shall be given an opportunity of hearing. It has already been declared by this Court in another case, that the proceedings under Section 25 (1) cannot be finalized even by issuance of a 'composite notice', directing the party to produce the documents and also casually mentioning that, he will be at liberty to have a personal hearing. It has been made clear that, after obtaining the explanation, the sustainability of the objection has to be considered and if it is acceptable no further proceedings are to be pursued and if not acceptable, the date of hearing has to be intimated to the parties and the proceedings shall be finalized accordingly. 4. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is at liberty to file a detailed statement of objections before the second respondent and produce all the requisite materials. The proceedings shall be finalized by the second respondent only after giving a specific opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as aforesaid. The petitioner shall file statement of objections as above within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the proceedings shall be finalized by the concerned respondent as mentioned above, within one month W.P. (C) No. 23050 of 2010 : 3 : thereafter. It is made clear that all the issues raised by the petitioner in this Writ Petition are left open. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd