IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 12TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2854 of 2011(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.PERIYANAYAKI AMMAN PLASTICS, R.V.P. PUDUR, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,A, BABU RAJ. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SMT.K.HYMAVATHY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER-11 CHITTUR - 678 104, PALAKKAD DIST. BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.2854 of 2011-F ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T Exts.P9 to P12 orders of assessments completed under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act)with respect to the years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2009-10, are challenged in this writ petition, without filing statutory appeals, on the specific ground that the orders of assessments are vitiated by non-compliance of the mandatory procedure prescribed and also by non-compliance of principles of natural justice. 2. The specific contention of the petitioner is that, on receipt of proposal notices the petitioner had submitted detailed objection in all the cases. But the assessments were finalised without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is also pointed out that in the objections filed before the Assessing Authority, specific request were made for affording such opportunity. It is noticed that the opportunity of hearing contemplated under Section 25(1) is not an empty formality and once the authority feels that the objection submitted to the proposal notices are not acceptable it is obligatory on the part of W.P(C) No.2854 of 2011-F 2 the assessing authority to finalise the assessment after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. This Court in a decision reported in C.K.Sunny V Addl. Sales Tax Officer (2004) 12 KTR 360) and in a recent decision in Suzion Infrastructure Service Ltd. V. Commercial Tax Officer (W.C), Ernakulam (2010(3) KHC 299 (Ker ) had specifically observed that the opportunity for personal hearing before finalisation of assessment, on the basis of the objections raised, is not an empty formality and non-compliance of such formality will vitiate the order of assessment. 3. Going by the impugned orders of assessment, it is evident that while considering the objections, the assessing authority had failed in affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent is also not in a position to point out any instance regarding opportunity of hearing afforded. On a perusal of Ext.P9, I notice that the assessing authority had even observed that the request of the dealer for affording opportunity could not be accepted since the dealer made a request to allow two weeks time for producing further evidence. W.P(C) No.2854 of 2011-F 3 4. Considering the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned orders are unsustainable in the eye of law for want of compliance of the mandatory procedure. Therefore, those orders are liable to be quashed. 5. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Exts.P9 to P12 orders. The 1st respondent is directed to consider the matter afresh and to pass fresh orders of assessments, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be afforded with opportunity to produce documents and evidence in support of the objections raised. Fresh assessments in this regard shall be completed as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ab