IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 5389 of 2008(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- M/S.HIGHLAND ENTERPRISES, MUNDAKAYAM, REPRESENTED BY SANJU J.CHERKOTTU, MANAGING PARTNER. BY ADV. DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY (SR.) SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PONKUNNAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PUBLIC BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 5389 OF 2008 N ==================== Dated this the 28th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition, the challenge is against Exts. P3 and P4 assessment orders for the year 2005-06 and 2006-07. 2. Although several contentions have been raised, I am only concerned with the contention regarding the violation of the principles of natural justice in this case. 3. According to the petitioner, by Ext.P1 notice dated 9/1/2008, they were called upon to produce documents on 16/1/2008. It is stated that notice was served on them on 22/1/2008 and in Ext.P2 letter dated 24/1/2008, they have intimated the 1st respondent about the delayed receipt of notice only on 22/1/2008. However, without giving them an opportunity, the assessment was completed on 30/1/2008. 4. Evidently, therefore, petitioner did not have an opportunity to produce the documents and contest the matter WPC 5389/08 :2 : before the 1st respondent. Thus the assessments completed as per Exts. P3 and P4 was without reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and for that reason, the assessment orders are liable to be set aside. 5. Accordingly, I set aside Exts. P3 and P4 assessment orders and demand notices for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07. The 1st respondent is directed to issue fresh notice to the petitioner, give them an opportunity to produce their documents and contest the matter and thereafter, complete the assessment for the aforesaid assessment years afresh. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp