IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN SATURDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2011 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 23740 of 2011(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- PHILIPS ELECTRONICS (INDIA) LTD., DOOR NO.VI/160B, KUTTIKKATTUKARA P.O., OPP.INDIAN ALUMINIUM CO., ALUPURAM-683 504. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH JERARD SAMSON RODRIGUES SRI.ROVIN RODRIGUES RESPONDENT: --------------- ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE, MATTANCHERRY AT ALUVA-683 101. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI BOBBY JOHN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 23740 of 2011(N) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19/2/2011 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 11/3/2011. EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14/7/2011. EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 13/4/2011 RESPONDANTS'S EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE jma C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, & K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ ---------------------------------------------------- W.P(C) No. 23740 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T C.N. Ramachandran Nair , J Writ Petition is filed on the ground that personal hearing is not granted before finalising the assessment. According to the appellant's counsel the appellant requested for a personal hearing for which no posting was given by the Assessing Officer. However, Government Pleader pointed out that the last portion of the pre-assessment notice shows that the Assessing Officer has given an opportunity for personal hearing along with the opportunity to file an objection within seven days granted by him. A legal question raised by the counsel is whether a second opportunity of hearing should be given by the Assessing Officer after receipt of reply to the pre assessment notice, if the reply was not acceptable to the Officer. This issue is decided by a W.P(C) 23740/2011 : 2 : Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1378/2011 dated 2.11.2011 wherein the finding is that when opportunity for hearing at the time of filing reply was given a second round of notice is not required for the purpose of hearing alone. However, the finding of the Division Bench is that the personal hearing if sought, should be granted to the party. In any case, even if assessment is completed violating principles of natural justice the appellant has an effective remedy by way of appeal to the statutory authority who has the full powers of the Assessing Officer to modify assessment and to grant relief to the assessee. In this case, we notice that specific proposals were made in the pre assessment notice and the petitioner filed a detailed objection. It is seen that even though only seven days time was granted, assessment is actually completed much after and after referring to all the objections. the petitioner could have appeared before the officer any time before completing of assessment and raised his oral arguments if he wanted. However, they W.P(C) 23740/2011 : 3 : did not do it in any case. Since the officer has considered the objections and rejected the same, we do not think the granting of one more opportunity before the officer will serve any purpose. Appellant can and should therefore pursue the remedy by way of statutory appeal. Without going into the merits of the challenge against assessment we dismiss the appeal leaving it open to the petitioner to file statutory appeal and if the time is over petitioner is granted two weeks time from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment for filing statutory appeal. Sd/- C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR (Judge) Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN (Judge) jma //True copy// P.A to Judge