IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2011 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 33371 of 2011(V) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER ------------------- M/S. BINANI ZINC LTD, BINANIPURAM ALUVA, KOCHI-683502 REP.BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER(FINANCE) SHRI BIJU, RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.KURYAN THOMAS RESPONDENTS ---------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY (TAXES)GOVERNMENT OF KERALA SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE, MATTANCHERRY AT ALUVA KOCHI-683101 R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: dlk WP(C).No. 33371 of 2011(V) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD 27/7/2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DTD 22/8/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD 25/10/2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. dlk S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 33371 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 16th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an assessee on the files of the 2nd respondent under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. He was issued with Ext.P1 pre- assessment notice under Section 25(1) of the Act read with Rule 12A proposing to assess the petitioner for balance tax to the tune of ` 17,78,965/-. The petitioner filed objections to the same. Now Ext.P3 assessment order has been passed for an amount of ` 1,85,80,976/-. The petitioner raises two contentions in this writ petition. The first is that the amount assessed is more than ten times the proposal in Ext.P1 pre- assessment notice. Secondly, that the petitioner has not been given an effective opportunity of being heard. Since the amount actually assessed is more than ten times the proposal in Ext.P1, I directed the learned Government Pleader to get instructions as to why this happened. The learned Government Pleader today submits that certain mistakes have crept into Exts.P1 and P3 and that the 2nd respondent is prepared to redo the assessment in accordance with law after issuing fresh pre-assessment notice. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: Ext.P3 assessment order is quashed. If the 2nd respondent has a w.p.c.33371/11 - : 2 :- case that Ext.P1 has been mistakenly issued, it would be open to the 2nd respondent to issue a fresh notice in accordance with law. Needless to say, the petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity of being heard before passing fresh assessment orders. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge