IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2010 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 32604 of 2010(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- MARY GEORGE, PROPRIETRIX, PANDARAKALAM DISTRIBUTORS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD SRI.C.JOSEPH JOHNY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ETTUMANOOR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.32604 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Ext.P5 and P6 are notices issued by the respondent, intimating the petitioner about the proposal to finalise assessment under Section 25(1) and the proposal to impose penalty under Section 67(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act), respectively. According to the petitioner, the return submitted was proposed to be rejected due to some errors and discrepancies alleged with respect to credit of input tax claimed. It is stated that the error occurred only due to some inadvertent mistake crept in while preparing the return by the Accountant of the petitioner firm. The petitioner had submitted Ext.P7 reply to the notices, accompanied with an affidavit sworn to by the Accountant, explaining circumstances under such mistakes. Apprehension of the petitioner is that the respondent may finalise the proceedings without properly considering the explanations and without adverting to the supporting documents. The petitioner expresses an apprehension that the respondent may issue orders without affording any W.P.(C).32604/10-A -2- opportunity of hearing. Under the above circumstances the writ petition is filed seeking directions for an effective consideration of Ext.P7 reply and also for affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and opportunity to substantiate her case. 2. I do not find any basis for the apprehension expressed by the petitioner that the respondent will finalise the proceedings without proper advertence to the objections and without affording reasonable opportunity for production of documents or for personal hearing. Needless to say that it is mandatory on the part of the respondent to afford such opportunities, before completing the proceedings. There is no need for issuing any specific direction in this regard since the respondent is bound to comply with such procedures as mandated in the provisions, adhering to principles of natural justice. The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the respondent to take note of the above observations while finalizing the proceedings initiated on the basis of Ext.P5 & P6. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb