IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2011 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5662 of 2011(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- CRYPTM CONFECTIONERS (INDIA) PVT.LTD, KANJIRAMPARA ROAD, THODUPUZHA-685 584, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR VARGHESE THOMAS. BY ADV. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR SRI.K.UMAMAHESWAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE ASST.COMMISSIONER,COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE, THODUPUZHA-685 584. BY ADV.SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN, Sr.GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.5662 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T Assessments completed against the petitioner as per Exts.P12 to P14 orders, with respect to the years 2005-06 to 2007-08, are under challenge in this writ petition. The assessment orders are challenged without resorting to statutory remedy of appeal on the basis that those orders are per se illegal, and issued without compliance of the mandatory procedure contemplated under section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act) and also in violation of principles of natural justice. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that, they have filed specific objections against the proposals for completing the assessments. But those objections were discarded by the assessing authority, without affording an opportunity of persona hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the hearing contemplated under section 25(1) of KVAT Act is not an empty formality, as held 2 W.P.(C).No.5662 of 2011 in a recent decision of this Court Suzion Infrastructure Service Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer (W.C.), Ernakulam (2010(3) KHC 299 (Ker) and violation of the said procedure will vitiate the order of assessment. 3. On a perusal of Exts.P12 to P14 orders it is evident that on receipt of the proposal notices the petitioner had filed detailed objections. It is further evident that the assessing authority had unilaterally considered those objections and finalised the assessment, treating such objections as not tenable. As contended, it is mandatory that if the assessing authority is discarding the objections, an opportunity of hearing should be afforded to the assessee. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents are not in a position to point out that any specific opportunity of personal hearing was afforded before finalisation of the assessment. 4. Under the above circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned orders are unsustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and Exts.P12 3 W.P.(C).No.5662 of 2011 to P14 orders are hereby quashed. 5. The respondent is directed to consider the matter afresh, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Needless to say that, the petitioner shall be given liberty to produce documents and books of accounts in support of the objections raised. Fresh orders in this regard shall be issued by the respondent 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/