IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2011 / 23RD POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 568 of 2011(U) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- J.L.NAZEER, AGED 43, S/O.JAMALUDHEEN LABBA, FATHIMA BUILDING, KUNDAYAM P.O., PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT-689 695. BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY (FOREST DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICE, TIMBER SALES DIVISION, PUNALUR. 3. THE DEPOT OFFICER, TIMBER SALES DIVISION, PATHANAPURAM DEPOT, PATHANAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BENNY VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 568 of 2011-U ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 9th day of January, 2012 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P8 and P9 orders of assessments, under the KVAT & CST Acts for the assessment years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. The case of the petitioner is that orders were passed without affording him an opportunity to produce his books of account and other documents and also affording them an opportunity of hearing. 2. However, as rightly pointed out by the Government Pleader pre assessment notices evidenced by Exgts.P3 and P4 were issued to the petitioner and he filed Exts.P5 and P6 replies dated 23.11.2011 only on 28.11. 2011. This fact is evident form Ext.P7 also. It is stated that by the time the replies were filed on 28.11.2011, the impugned orders of assessment were issued on 23.11.2011. W.P.(C) No.568/2011 : 2 : 3. Evidently therefore on receipt of pre assessment notices, the petitioner did not file the replies and it was therefore, the assessments were completed without further reference to the petitioner. This does not make out a case of vioilation of natural justice. However, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders of assessment were issued only after receipt of the replies and that the dates shown in the assessment orders are fabricated. However, this is a disputed of question of fact which cannot be proved in a writ petition. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. Petitioner is free to avail statutory remedy to prove his contentions. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) vi/