IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2011 / 1ST MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2140 of 2011(N) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- HI-LITE BUILDERS (P) LTD., HI-LITE HOUSE, METRO MAX JUNCTION, THONDAYAD BYE-PASS ROAD, P.O.NELLIKODE, KOZHIKODE-673 016. REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (FINANCE & ACCOUNTS) SRI.SUNIL MATHEW. K. BY ADV. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM), SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR, SRI.K.UMAMAHESWAR. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, WORKS CONTRACT & LUXURY TAX, KOZHIKODE-673 006. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.2140 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- The petitioner is challenging Ext.P3 order of assessment invoking jurisdiction of this court, without resorting to the statutory remedy of appeal, on the ground that the order in question is vitiated by non compliance of the mandatory procedure prescribed and also the non-compliance of natural justice. It is contended that, while passing Ext.P3 order, the 1st respondent has failed to comply with the mandatory procedure contemplated under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act). 2. It is mentioned that the petitioner had filed objections to the proposal notice received. But the authority had failed to afford any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner while considering such objections and while finalising the assessments. It is contended that the effective opportunity of hearing provided under the relevant statute is not an empty formality as held by this court in Suzion Infrastructure Service Ltd. Vs. C.T.O. (2010 (3) KHC 299). Since the assessment is finalised without affording any proper opportunity to the petitioner it is contended that Ext.P3 order is W.P.(C).2140/11 -2- vitiated, is the contention. 3. On a perusal of Ext.P3 it is evident that the petitioner had filed objections to the proposal notice. But nothing is reflected in the order to show that the assessing authority has afforded any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before finalising the assessment. Under such circumstances I am of the view that Ext.P3 is unsustainable in the eye of law. 4. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P3 is hereby quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to consider the matter afresh and to finalise the assessment after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be afforded with opportunity to produce books of accounts or documents if any in support of the claim raised through the objections. A final order 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. okb