IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2011 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6983 of 2011(W) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- P.R.RAHULAN, P.R.AGENCIES, VIII/344, DISPENSARY LANE, CHERAI P.O., PIN-683 514, REPRESENTED BY PROPRIETOR. BY ADVS. SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U. SRI.K.N.SREEKUMARAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER-1, 2ND CIRCLE, MATTANCHERRY - 682 001. 2. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERRY - 682 001. 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.6983 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Ext.P8 to P10 orders of assessments completed against the petitioner with respect to the years 2006-'07, 2007-'08 and 2008-'09 are challenged in this writ petition, without resorting to statutory remedy of appeal as provided under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act). The challenge is mainly on the ground that the impugned orders are unsustainable in the eye of law, since there is violation of mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 25(1) and also there is violation of principles of natural justice. Contention of the petitioner is that, before finalisation of the assessments, the petitioner was served with notices of proposals, to which the petitioner had filed detailed objections. But, while discarding those objections and finalising the assessments on a best judgment basis, the petitioner was not afforded with an opportunity of hearing. Pointing to the provisions contained under Section 25(1), it is contended by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, the personal hearing contemplated therein, after submission of objections to the proposal notice, is not an empty formality. Relying on a recent decision of this court in Suzion Infrastructure Service Ltd. W.P.(C).6983/11 -2- Vs. C.T.O. (2010 (3) KHC 299) learned counsel contended that any non-compliance of such procedure will vitiate the orders of assessments. 2. On a perusal of Ext.P8 to P10 it is discernible that on receipt of the proposal notice, the petitioner had filed objections with respect to all the three assessments. It is further revealed that the assessing authority had considered those objections unilaterally and rejected them without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents is not in a position to confront the above situation. 3. Under the above circumstances I am of the considered opinion that Ext.P8 to P10 are not sustainable in the eye of law, being vitiated by non-compliance of the mandatory procedure contemplated and also violative of principles of natural justice. Therefore the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P8 to P11 orders are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration. The 1st respondent is directed to finalise the matter afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, on the basis of the objections submitted. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be afforded with opportunity to produce documents and Books of Accounts if any available in support of the contentions raised. W.P.(C).6983/11 -3- 4. Fresh orders of assessments in this regard shall be issued 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. okb