IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2010 / 22ND SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25429 of 2010(C) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- R.L.ANIL, AKSHAYA ENTERPRISES, 43/280, CITIZEN ROAD, AYYAPPANKAVU, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-18. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KVAT CIRCLE-1, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT.PLEADER C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SVS. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 25429 of 2010-C ---------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of the course pursued by the Assessing Authority in finalisation of the assessment under Section 25 of the KVAT Act in response to Ext.P1 notice. The petitioner had submitted Ext.P2 reply and without considering the same and hearing the petitioner, that Ext.P5 order was issued, which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. The course and manner in which the proceedings have to be finalised under Section 25 has already been considered by this Court as per the decision reported in Suzion Infrastructure Service Ltd. V Commercial Tax Officer, (W.C), Ernakulam (2010(3) KHC 299). It has been made by this Court that, by virtue of the mandate under the 1st proviso to Section 25(1), issuance of a composite notice, specifying the right of assessee to file objections and also mentioning that he will stand vested with the opportunity of hearing W.P(C) No. 25429 of 2010-C 2 within the said period is not correct or proper. It has been made clear that, on issuance of the notice, the assessee is at liberty to file statement of objections and if the statement of objections is not acceptable to the assessing authority, the assessee shall be heard on the issue before passing the order. This Court finds that the course pursued by the assessing authority as per Ext.P3 is not correct or proper. 4. In the said circumstances, Ext.P3 is set aside and the first respondent is directed to finalise the matter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab