IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2011 / 27TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 22380 of 2011(V) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- M.C.SUNIL, CEEYEM ASSOCIATES, B.P.L.JUNCTION,CHANDRANAGAR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHAKARA MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BYSECRETARY,FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES,II CIRCLE,PALAKKAD, PIN-678 001. 3. TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) COLLECTORATE, PALAKKAD,PIN-678 001. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.22380/2011 V APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD. 03/03/2011 FOR THE YEAR 2003-04. P2: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 16/06/2010 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 17(3) OF KGST ACT,1963. P3: COPY OF THE RR DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 08/07/2011 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 22380 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 18th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext.P1 assessment order passed by the 2nd respondent under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, for the assessment year 2003-04. The petitioner is challenging the same directly before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. He submits that although he had received Ext.P2 pre-assessment notice dated 16.6.2010, there was no direction therein to file objections within any specified time. He also submits that in Ext.P2 notice dated 16.6.2010, the 2nd respondent states that the books of accounts of the petitioner were called for on various dates including 18.6.2010. Therefore, having posted the matter to 18.6.2010 for production of records, it was not proper to issue pre-assessment notice on 16.6.2010 is his contention. He points out that the same shows the callous way, in which, the 2nd respondent has dealt with the assessment. He points out that as held by this Court in Suzion Infrastructure Service Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer (W.C.), Ernakulam [2010(3) KHC 299], a hearing is mandatory before assessment, which is also not provided to the petitioner. 2. The learned Government Pleader submits that although in w.p.c.22380/11 2 Ext.P2 no objections were called for and no date had been fixed for filing objections, the notice being statutory under Section 17(3) of the KGST Act, the petitioner was obliged to file a reply to the same, if he had objections to the proposals contained therein. He further submits that Ext.P2 notice was issued as early as on 16.6.2010 and Ext.P1 assessment order was passed only on 3.3.2011. He further points out that the petitioner has approached this Court only on 17.8.2011, although he received Ext.P1 assessment order on 30.3.2011. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. I would say that both are correct in their submissions. But still it remains a fact that there were mistakes committed by the 2nd respondent in completing the proceedings. In Ext.P2 there is no direction to file objections within any specified time. Further Ext.P2 dated 16.6.2010 refers to a notice dated 18.6.2010 for production of accounts without waiting for which the pre-assessment notice was issued. Further no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner also. In the above circumstances, on equitable consideration, I am of opinion that the petitioner should be given another opportunity. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: Ext.P1 assessment order is quashed. The petitioner shall file objections to Ext.P2 within two weeks. The petitioner shall appear for a w.p.c.22380/11 3 hearing on the objections on 5.9.2011. The petitioner shall be ready with all his account books on that day before the assessing officer. The assessing officer shall hear the petitioner on that day and pass fresh assessment order expeditiously. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge