IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 34025 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- TONY ANTO.P., TASA DECOR, JNI STADIUM, KALOOR, COCHIN. BY ADV. SMT.T.RADHAMANY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICE, SECOND CIRCLE, KALAMASSERY-683104 2. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, VIKAS BHAVAN.P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 001. BY G.P.SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 34025 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 11th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Exts.P3 and P4 orders of assessments, with respect to the years 2003-'04 and 2004-'05 completed under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (KGST Act), are under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner is assailing the orders of assessments, without filing statutory appeals, on the premise that the petitioner was denied of an effective opportunity to submit objections against the pre-assessment notices and also denied of an opportunity for personal hearing. 3. It is contended that, on receipt of the proposal notice the petitioner had submitted a letter requesting 30 days time for producing the books of accounts and other records by engaging a new Accountant on the ground that the business was closed and the office was wound up. The W.P.(C) No. 34025/2010 2 grievance of the petitioner is that the assessment was finalized ex parte without allowing such request. 4. On a perusal of Exts.P3 and P4 it is noticed that the assessing authority observed that a request for adjournment was received from the petitioner. But the same was not granted on the ground that the assessment was long pending and the proposal was confirmed. 5. Merely because the assessment is pending finalization for a considerable time, there is no justification in denying proper opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate their case. Having been received with a request for adjournment, the assessing authority ought to have granted an opportunity with a shorter period, if he was not inclined to grant one month's time as requested. It is pertinent to note that the assesing authorities are exercising quasi judicial powers, strict adherence to principles of natural justice is a 'sine qua non'. It is evident that there was denial of effective opportunity to the petitioner to place his contentions, before finalizing the W.P.(C) No. 34025/2010 3 assessment. Hence, I am of the view that Exts.P3 and P4 orders are unsustainable in the eye of law. 6. Therefore the writ petition is allowed and Exts.P3 and P4 are hereby quashed. The petitioner is directed to file objections to Exts.P1 and P2 proposal notices within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The 1st respondent is directed to consider such objections if field by the petitioner within the time stipulated, and to finalize the assessment afresh after affording an effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 7. It is assured by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner will co-operate with finalization of the assessment at the earliest. The assessing authority is directed to pass fresh orders in this regard, as early as possible, at any rte within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such objections. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. W.P.(C) No. 34025/2010 4 mn.