IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 12TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1073 of 2011(H) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- C.T.AMEER ALI, PROPRIETOR, SAPNA CONSTRUCTIONS, M.G.ROAD, KASARAGOD- 671 121. BY ADVS. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM), SRI. K.S. HARIHARAN, SRI. K. UMA MAHESWAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER( W.C & L.T), KASARAGOD- 671 121. 2. DY.COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERANHIPPALAM,KOZHIKODE -673 006. 3. THE INSPECTNG ASST.COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KASARAGOD- 671 121. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.1073 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4 order of assessment finalised under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act). Contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P4 order is unsustainable in the eye of law since the assessment was finalised in violation of mandatory procedure prescribed under statute and also in violation of principles of natural justice. It is the specific contention that, eventhough the petitioner filed detailed objections against the proposal for assessment, the authority had finalised the assessment without affording an opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the requirement for affording personal hearing contemplated under Section 25 (1) is not an empty formality and violation of such procedure will vitiate the order itself. 2. On a perusal of Ext.P4 the order does not reflect about any opportunity of personal hearing afforded to the petitioner, after filing of the objections. On the other hand, it is noticed that the assessing authority had considered the W.P.(C).1073/11 -2- objections and arrived at conclusions thereon on the basis of independent analysis. However, it is noticed that, against Ext.P4, the petitioner had already approached the statutory appellate authority, the 2nd respondent herein, by filing Ext.P5 appeal. Under such circumstances I am of the view that interest of justice will be served by directing the appellate authority to have an early disposal of the matter and till then to restrain recovery of the amounts covered under the impugned assessment. 3. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P5 appeal, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 4. Till such time the appeal is disposed of as directed above, recovery of amounts covered under Ext.P4 shall be kept in abeyance. 5. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb