IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2010 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 32193 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJAN M.MENON,SAFE LINE ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS, NO.15,MINI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, KALMANDAPAM,PALAKKAD, PIN 678 007. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHAKARA MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT , GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER(WORKS CONTRACT) COMMERCIAL TAXES,COMMERCIAL TAXES COMPLEX, PALAKKAD,PIN 678 001. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 32193 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Ext.P1 order of assessment issued under Section 25 (1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act), is under challenge in this Writ Petition. The petitioner filed annual return for the year 2007-08 disclosing purchase turnover, which includes interstate purchase. The petitioner had failed to produce books of accounts on the basis of notice issued by the assessing authority. Therefore proposal to complete the assessment by rejecting the return, was issued to the petitioner. It is admitted that the proposal notice was received by the petitioner on 14.08.2010. But he submitted Ext.P2 request seeking one months' time to file objections, on the ground that he is suffering from illness and undertaking treatment. It is evident from Ext.P1 order of assessment that the assessing authority had received the said request, which is dated 16.08.2010. But it is 2 WP(C) No. 32193/2010 mentioned in Ext.P1 that a hearing was posted as per the proposal notice as on 18.08.2010 and since the petitioner has not turned up for the hearing the assessment was finalised. 2. Normally, the petitioner is expected to file statutory appeal against order finalising the assessment. The petitioner is approaching this Court without resorting such statutory remedy on the ground that no proper opportunity to file objection and for personal hearing was afforded. It is evident from Ext.P1 order that a request for adjournment was received by the assessing authority. Nothing is indicated in Ext.P1 to show that as to whether such a request was granted or refused by the assessing authority. Further it is noticed that the proposal notice was issued fixing the date of hearing on 18.08.2010. In fact, it is a mandatory requirement to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing after filing of the objections. 3. However, learned Government Pleader on the 3 WP(C) No. 32193/2010 basis of instructions submitted that further opportunity of hearing was provided on 26.08.2010. 4. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, it is evident that the petitioner has not filed objections to the proposal notice and his request for time has not been favourably considered. There was no effective opportunity afforded to the petitioner to raise his objections with respect to the proposal notice. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the impugned order of assessment is not issued after proper compliance of the mandatory requirements and principles of natural justice. Hence I am of the opinion that the matter needs reconsideration at the hands of the second respondent. 5. Therefore the Writ Petition is allowed and Ext.P1 is hereby quashed. The petitioner is directed to submit objections if any to the proposal notice, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If any such objection is submitted, the second respondent 4 WP(C) No. 32193/2010 will finalise the assessment afresh, after affording reasonable opportunity for the petitioner to produce books of accounts as well as an opportunity of personal hearing. Fresh order of assessment shall be issued by the second respondent as early as possible, at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the objections as directed above. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc