IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2009 / 31ST ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 20011 of 2009(V) -------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ PURUSHOTHAM LAL ARORA, PROPRIETOR, BABA SALES CORPORATION, DOOR.NO.39/1460, MUZHAGHANTHARA HOUSE, NEAR SOUTH OVERBRIDGE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-16. BY ADVS. MR.VIJAYAN. K.U. MR.K.N.SREEKUMARAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. SALES TAX OFFICER, IST CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (TAXES), GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No.20011 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 22nd July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The assessment in respect of the assessment years 2003- 04 and 2004-05 were completed on best judgment basis;, aggrieved of which, the petitioner preferred appeals before the second respondent way back in February, 2007 along with I.A. for stay. Since no favourable orders were passed even in the I.A. , the petitioner was constrained to remit various amounts as stated in paragraph No. 4 of the Writ Petition, which, according to the petitioner, satisfied more than 60% of the alleged liability. Finally, when the steps were pursued for early hearing and disposal of the appeals, the petitioner was shockingly given to understand that the appeal in respect of the assessment year 2004-05 was dismissed by the appellate authority as per Ext. P9, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, however stating that the appeal was dismissed on merits. It is further pointed out that the other appeal pertaining to the assessment year 2003-04, which was preferred along with the W.P.(C) No.20011 OF 2009 2 appeal in respect of the subsequent assessment year, is still kept in cold storage. 2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that Ext.P9 was passed by the authority after giving notice to the petitioner. But in Ext. P9 order, the 'date of hearing' is shown as 'Nil' and appearance for the appellant is also stated as 'Nil' . Even though the appeal was stated as posted on 13.05.2008 and 12.11.2008, no notice of hearing is cited as issued in that regard. Though it is recorded in Ext. P9 order that the appeal was disposed of on merits, the only reasoning given in Ext. P9 is as follows: “As the appellant could not prove the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal, the appeal is dismissed.” 3. Obviously, Ext.P9 cannot be treated as a 'speaking order' and it is very much discernible that the same was passed behind the petitioner. In the said circumstances, Ext. P9 cannot have any further existence. The learned Government Pleader submits that the appeal in respect of the assessment year 2003- W.P.(C) No.20011 OF 2009 3 04 is pending and that the date of hearing has been scheduled as 31.07.2009. 4. In the above circumstances, Ext.P9 is set aside and the second respondent is directed to consider both the appeals, in respect of assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law. The petitioner shall appear before the second respondent on 31.07.2009, on which date the appeal pertaining to the assessment year 2003-04 stands posted for hearing and the second respondent shall also consider the appeal which forms the subject matter of Ext.P9 on that day or on such date to which the appeals are adjourned. It is also made clear that till final orders as passed in the above appeals, all coercive steps stated as being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk