IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34125 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- GIGI MANUEL, PROPRIETRIX, MANNUEL HATCHERY & BREADING FARM, KANAKKANKULAM, KOZHIPPARA PO, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJU JOSEPH, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT: ---------------------- THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER CHITTUR, PALAKKAD 678 101. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.CK.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.34125 of 2010-M ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T Ext.P3 order of assessment finalised under Section 25 (1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act) is under challenge in this writ petition. Eventhough an effective statutory remedy by way of appeal is provided, the petitioner is challenging validity of the order on the basis of a specific contention that the assessment was completed without complying with the mandatory procedure, prescribed under the provisions of the relevant statute and that the impugned order was issued without adhering to principles of natural justice. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that, after receipt of detailed objection filed by the petitioner against the proposal notice, the assessing authority had finalised the matter without affording any opportunity of hearing. It is pointed out that as per Section 25 of the KVAT Act, it is mandatory on the part of the assessing authority to finalise W.P(C) No.34125 of 2010-M 2 the assessment after affording a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing. In a recent decision of this Court in Suzion Infrastructure Service Ltd. V. Commercial Tax Officer (W.C), Ernakulam (2010(3) KHC 299 (Ker ), it is emphasised that the opportunity for personal hearing contemplated is not an empty formality and strict compliance of the procedure is mandatory. It is stated therein that any on failure of compliance of such procedure will vitiate the order of assessment. A further contention is also raised by the petitioner that, the basis on which the order of assessment was made, is different from what is mentioned on the proposal notice. 3. On a perusal of the impugned order of assessment, it is evident that the assessing authority had admitted that the petitioner had filed detailed objection to the proposal notice. But the assessing authority had not afforded any opportunity of personal hearing before finalising the assessment. Therefore, I am of the view that the assessment in question is unsustainable in the eye of W.P(C) No.34125 of 2010-M 3 law and the same need re-consideration by the assessing authority. 4. In the result, Ext.P3 order of assessment is hereby quashed. The respondent is directed to consider the matter afresh after affording an effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 5. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his contentions. Fresh order of assessment shall be issued by the respondent at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab