IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2010 / 23RD ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21919 of 2010(L) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ VALIYAVEETTIL STEELS, WEST NADA. KODUNGALLOOR REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR. V.A. MUHAMED ALI BY ADV. SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOOTHIRI RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KODUNGALLOOR, THRISSUR 680 664. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 21919 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext.P1 order passed under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no opportunity of hearing was given before passing any such order. It is also case of the petitioner that petitioner was sought for adjournment of the case; because of some pressing circumstances, which however was not granted and the proceedings were finalised in a hasty manner, which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. The course and proceedings to be pursued while passing an order under Section 25(1) is clearly discernible from the said provision itself. The provision clearly contemplates issuance of a notice in the prescribed form. Over and above issuance of notice, the 'first proviso' also stipulates that before passing the assessment under this Section, the assessee shall be given an opportunity of hearing, which is a basic requirement as made clear by this Court on an earlier occasion in WP(C) 14332/2010. 4. Going by the contents of Ext.P1 notice, what has been 2 WP(C) No. 21919/2010 required is to submit objection, if any, within 7 days with supporting evidence; failing which the proposal is stated as to be confirmed and finalized. Going by the contents of Ext.P7 order, the proceedings are seen completed by the concerned respondent without giving an opportunity of hearing as contemplated under the 'first proviso' to Section 25(1). The requirement in this regard is obviously seen ignored and this being the position, Ext.P7 order cannot have any valid existence in the eye of law. Ext.P7 is set aside and the 1st respondent is directed to finalise the matter giving an effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in the manner as prescribed under the relevant provisions of law. The proceedings as above shall be finalized as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc