IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 2681 of 2011(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.P.BASHEER, M/S.POOTHANAL AGENCIES, VELLOORKUNNAM, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, MUVATTUPUZHA-686 661. 2. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, MUVATTUPUZHA-686 661. BY ADV.SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 2681 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ext.P3 order of assessment finalised against the petitioner with respect to the years 2008-09, is challenged in this writ petition, without resorting to the statutory remedy of appeal, on the ground that the order in question is per se illegal. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that, the assessment was finalised without complying with the mandatory procedure prescribed under section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act and also in violation of principle of natural justice. Specific case of the petitioner is that on receipt of the proposal notice, the petitioner had submitted detailed objections. But the objections were discarded by the assessing authority without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is pointed out that the opportunity of hearing as contemplated under section 25(1) is not an empty formality and non compliance of such 2 W.P.(C).No. 2681 of 2011 procedure will vitiate the order of assessment. Petitioner relies on the dictum in a recent decision of this Court in Suzian Infrastructure Service Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer (W.C.), Ernakulam (2010(3) KHC 299 (Ker). 3. Heard ; government pleader appearing on behalf of respondents. On perusal of Ext.P3, the impugned order of assessment, it is evident that against the proposal the petitioner had filed reply. But nothing is discernible from the order to the effect that any personal hearing was afforded after receipt of the reply. Government pleader is also not in a position to confront the above position. Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned order suffers from infirmity of non compliance of the mandatory procedure prescribed and also suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. 4. Under the above circumstances, Ext.P3 order is hereby quashed. The first respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and to pass fresh orders after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 3 W.P.(C).No. 2681 of 2011 Needless to say that the petitioner shall be provided with effective opportunity to produce documents and books of accounts in support of his claims. Fresh orders in this regard 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 ami/