IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2011 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 12620 of 2011(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- K. ASHRAF, HILL PRODUCE DEALER, PAKARANALLUR, PAZHUR, KUTTIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, SMT.K.HYMAVATHY. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (KVAT), SPECIAL CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, MALAPPURAM-676 505. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.12620 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Ext.P3 and P4 orders of assessment finalised against the petitioner under the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) and the Central Sales Tax Act respectively, for the year 2005-'06, are under challenge. The assessments are challenged without resorting to the statutory remedy of appeal, on the ground that the respondent had finalised the assessments in total violation of the procedure contemplated under the relevant statutes and in violation of principles of natural justice. 2. Specific contention of the petitioner is that the proposals for finalising the assessments, issued as per Ext.P1 and P2, had insisted the petitioner to file objections within three days of receipt of the same. However, the petitioner had submitted a detailed reply in which time was requested for producing documents evidencing payment of purchase tax and other evidences relating to the commission sales made inter state. But it is contended that the respondent had refused to grant time and finalised the assessments even without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is contended that the reason for not granting opportunity mentioned in the W.P.(C).12620/11 -2- impugned orders is baseless and unsustainable. The denial of sufficient opportunity for personal hearing will vitiate the impugned orders, is the contention. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of this court in Suzion Infrastructure Service Ltd. Vs. C.T.O. (2010 (3) KHC 299) in support of the above contentions and also the circulars issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes with respect to finalisation of assessments. 4. Having considered the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that, the assessments in question were finalised in a hasty manner, without affording any proper opportunity to the petitioner. It is noticed that only 3 days time was granted for filing objections. However, the request of the petitioner for granting time was not allowed without proper reasons. Eventhough the petitioner had requested 2 months time for producing documents, the authority could have granted a reasonable time. Violation on the part of the assessing authority to afford opportunity of personal hearing also goes against the procedure prescribed under relevant provisions and settled legal principles. Therefore, I am of the view that the orders of assessment impugned in this writ petition are unsustainable in the eye of law. 5. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the writ W.P.(C).12620/11 -3- petition is allowed and Ext.P3 and P4 are hereby quashed. The respondent is directed to finalise the assessments afresh, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and also opportunity to produce documents if any available in support of his contentions. 6. Fresh orders shall be issued at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb