IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 24TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27056 of 2010(F) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- MRS.ANNAMMA JOY, PROPRIETRIX, M.F.GARMENTS, MALAMURY, PULLUVAZHI P.O., PERUMBAVOOR-683541. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 2ND CIRCLE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM-683542. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------ WP(C) NO. 27056 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Ext.P4 assessment completed against him under Section 25 (1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act). Under the statute, there is an effective alternate remedy provided by way of appeal against such assessment. But contention of the petitioner is that, he was not served with any proposal notice before finalizing the assessment and that he was denied of opportunity to submit objections against such proposal. It is also contended that no opportunity of personal hearing, which is mandatory under Section 25(1), was afforded to the petitioner before Ext.P4. 2. According to the petitioner, the proposal notice was delivered in a shop situated at P.P. Road, Perumbavur from where the petitioner was functioning earlier. But it is the case of the petitioner that the business has been shifted to Pulluvazhi and registration certificate was issued by the assessing authority with respect to business conducted at the new address. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that by the time the petitioner came to know about the notice and approached the assessing authority, the assessment was finalized. 3. On a perusal of Ext.P4, it is evident that the assessment 2 WP(C) No. 27056/2010 was finalized on the premise that, inspite of receipt of notice by the assesse on 07.10.2010, he failed to submit any objections. Therefore the assessment was completed on the presumption that the assessee has no objection against such proposal. It is evident from the registration certificate produced (Ext.P1) that the place of business is at Pulluvazhi P.O., Perumbavoor. The petitioner admits that the notice was issued at the address at Manju Complex, P.P.Road, Perumbavoor. It is noticed that in Ext.P4 also the address of the assessee is shown as Manju Complex. The above facts will probabilise the submissions made by the petitioner that he came to know about the proposal only on a later stage, after completion of the assessment. 4. Under the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that it is only just and proper that a proper opportunity be given to the petitioner to raise objections against the proposal and also an opportunity of personal hearing, before finalization of the assessment. The petitioner also places reliance on a decision of this Court in Suzion Infrastructure Services Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer [2010 (3) KHC 299] in which it is held that the opportunity of hearing contemplated under Section 25 (1) is mandatory and non compliance will vitiate the order of assessment. 5. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and Ext.P4 is hereby quashed. Petitioner is directed to file objections if any against Ext.P3 3 WP(C) No. 27056/2010 proposal notice within a period of two weeks from today. If any such objection is received within the time stipulated as above, the respondent shall consider the same and finalise the assessment after affording a reasonable opportunity for personal hearing. 6. The fresh assessment as directed above shall be completed at the earliest, 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 dnc