IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2008 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1930 WA.No. 696 of 2008 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.8690/2008 Dated 19/03/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- GAMMON INDIA LIMITED, GAMMON HOUSE, VEER SARVARKAR MARG, PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI-400 025. BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------ COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WC & LT), MATTANCHERRY, ERNAKULAM. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MUHAMMED RAFIQ. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.M. JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WRIT APPEAL No. 696 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2008. JUDGMENT H.L.DATTU, CJ, Petitioner, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.8690 of 2008 dated 19th March, 2008, is before us in this appeal. 2. What was questioned by the petitioner before the learned Single Judge is an order of assessment passed by the assessing authority for the assessment year 2000-2001. In the writ proceedings, the petitioner had raised two contentions. Firstly, with regard to the opportunity of hearing not afforded to the petitioner before passing the orders of assessment. Secondly, with regard to the period of limitation while passing the orders of assessment. The learned Single Judge has negatived both the contentions and has disposed of the writ petition relegating the petitioner to prefer an appeal, if he is aggrieved by the orders of assessment. Aggrieved by the findings and the conclusions reached by the learned Single Judge, the petitioner is before us in this writ appeal. 3. Admittedly, what is questioned by the petitioner is the assessment order for the year 2000-2001. 4. At the time of hearing of this writ appeal, Sri. A.Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would very fairly submits that he is not taking up the contention that the order of assessment is passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Act. If this aspect of the matter is not pressed into service by the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant, what remains to be considered is only the second issue, viz., that the order of assessment is passed W.A.696/2008. 2 without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. In our view, this aspect of the matter is a mixed question of fact and law. The first appellate authority can call for the records, peruse the same and give a finding on this aspect of the matter. For this purpose the petitioner need not have to by-pass the statutory remedy provided under Act itself. In that view of the matter, we do not find any error in the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner/appellant, if he so desires, to prefer an appeal before the first appellate authority against the orders of assessment for the year 2000-2001 within fifteen days from today. If such an appeal is filed within the time granted by this court, the appellate authority shall entertain the appeal and decide the same on merits without reference to the period of limitation. The appellate authority shall consider the appeal without being influenced by any one of the observations made by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition. With these observations, the writ appeal is disposed of. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE sb/DK.