IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33302 of 2010(K) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- M/S.LIVING ALTERNATIVES PVT.LTD., 39/2088,SHANTHI,A.M.THOMAS ROAD,ERNAKULAM, COCHIN 682 016,REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.JOHNSON JACOB. BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR, SMT.NIVEDITA A.KAMATH. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER(WORKS CONTRACT),DEPAPRTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM - 682 016. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 33302 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 4th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4 order of assessment issued under section 25(1) of the the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act), with respect to the year 2006-'07. 2. The assessments orders are challenged in this writ petition, without filing statutory appeals, because, according to the petitioner, the order impugned is perse illegal for non- compliance of the mandatory provisions. It is pointed out that the petitioner was served with a proposal notice before finalization of the assessment, to which the petitioner submitted a detailed objection. Even though the impugned order reflects consideration of the objections raised, it is evident that the petitioner was not afforded with an opportunity of personal hearing, after submission of the objections, before finalization of the assessment. In a recent decision of this Court in Suzion Infrastructure Service Ltd.V. Commercial Tax Officer (W.C.), Ernakulam 2010(3) KHC 299, W.P.(C) No. 33302/2010 2 this Court categorically found that the lack of providing an opportunity of personal hearing before finalization of the assessment, after submission of objections by the assessee, would vitiate the order of assessment. 3. Under the above circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that Ext.P4 is not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P4 order is hereby quashed. 4. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and to finalize the assessment, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be permitted to produce books of accounts and other document in support of their 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. mn.