IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2010 / 7TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37569 of 2009(M) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- MESSRS. NEW KERALA TRADERS, ODAKKALI, ASSAMANNOOR, PERUMBAVOOR REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MR. M.N.SAJEEV. BY ADV. MR.A.KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 1ST CIRCLE, PERUMBAVOOR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.37569 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is challenging Ext.P2, ex-parte assessment order passed by the first respondent under Section 25(1) of KVAT Act 2003 stating that no effective opportunity was obtained to the petitioner to substantiate the case, before the proceedings were finalised, for the reasons stated in paragraph 8 of the writ petition. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the matter had already been entrusted with one Mr.Varghese, the concerned Consultant/Accountant being engaged for the past several years, who however, failed to pursue appropriate follow-up steps, which made the petitioner a defaulter, leading to Ext.P2 assessment order. 3. The learned Government Pleader, with reference to W.P.(C) No.37569 of 2009 -2- the statement filed on behalf of the respondents submits that the explanation however, is not at all palatable and further that the petitioner has approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy available. 4. Though this Court is not prepared to glibly swallow the version put forth by the petitioner, as to the arrangements made to have the matter represented before the assessing authority, it remains a fact that Ext.P2 is an ex-parte assessment and that the petitioner could be given one more opportunity to substantiate his case, but on terms. 5. In the above facts and circumstances, Ext.P2 assessment order is set aside and the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.3 lakhs within two weeks. On satisfying the said requirement and producing the proof, the first respondent shall consider the matter afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Appropriate order shall be passed finalising the proceedings as above in accordance with the law, as expeditiously as W.P.(C) No.37569 of 2009 -3- possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON (JUDGE) nl