IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 13TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2479 of 2011(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER:- ------------------ ANEESH BABU,M/S.BIJILI AGENCIES, OLD COURT ROAD, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679303 BY ADV. SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI RESPONDENTS:- ---------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PATTAMBI-679104 2. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD-678001 BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.2479 of 2011-H. = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd February, 2011. J U D G M E N T Exts.P3 and P3(A) orders of assessment are challenged without filing statutory appeals, on the premise that those orders are per se illegal and unsustainable in law, since the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing after filing of the objections to the pre-assessment notice. Going by the provisions contained under Section 25(1) it is evident that, if the assessing authority is not convinced of accepting the objections, then the assessment can be finalised after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in a recent decision of this Court in Suzion Infrastructure Service Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer (2010(3) KHC 299) is held that, the opportunity of hearing contemplated under Sec.25(1) of the KVAT Act is not an empty formality and that any violation of the said WP(C).No.2479 of 2011-H. 2 procedure will vitiate the order of assessment. 2. On a perusal of Exts.P3 and P3(A) it is evident that the order does not reflect any opportunity of hearing afforded to the petitioner before finalising the assessments. Learned Government Pleader is also not in a position to content that any personal hearing was afforded before finalising the assessments, after receipt of the objections. 3. Under the above circumstance I am of the view that the impugned orders are unsustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Exts.P3 and P3(A). 4. The first respondent is directed to pass fresh orders after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner with proper inadvertence and consideration of the contentions raised in the objections. Needless to say that the petitioner should be afforded with opportunity to produce documents in support of their contentions. Fresh WP(C).No.2479 of 2011-H. 3 orders in this regard shall be issued as early as 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) Kvs/-