IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2011 / 7TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1350 of 2011(P) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- RAPPAI SONS, CARMEL BUILDING, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 018, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, K.R. MOHAN. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER-III, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, IST CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM - 682 018. 2. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM - 682 030. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.1350 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Ext.P4 order of assessment issued under Section 25 (1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) is challenged without resorting to statutory remedy of appeal, contending that the order is per se illegal and is vitiated by non- compliance of mandatory procedure stipulated in the relevant provisions as well as violation of principles of natural justice. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that, on receipt of the proposal notice, the petitioner had filed detailed objections. But the assessing authority had finalised the assessment without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, and without affording any opportunity to substantiate the contentions raised in the objections by producing Books of Accounts or other supporting documents. Petitioner relies on a recent decision of this court in Suzion Infrastructure Service Ltd. Vs. C.T.O. (2010 (3) KHC 299) in order to contend that the opportunity of hearing provided under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act is not an empty formality and that any non-compliance of such procedures will vitiate the order of assessment. 3. On a perusal of Ext.P4 it is evident that the assessing authority had illustrated the main contentions raised in the W.P.(C).1350/11 -2- objections submitted by the petitioner. But nothing is revealed from the order to the effect that, any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, after receipt of such objections. Learned Government Pleader on the basis of instructions fairly conceded that after receipt of the objections no specific posting was given for a personal hearing. But the contention is that the Accountant of the dealer was heard at the time when the objection was submitted. However, I am of the opinion that there is no proper compliance of the mandatory requirements and hence the impugned order could not be sustained in the eye of law. 4. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P4 is hereby quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to pass fresh orders of assessment after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also an opportunity to produce Books of Accounts or other documents to substantiate the objections. Fresh orders in this regard shall be issued at the earliest, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb