IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 5801 of 2010(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.FANTASY SALES CORPORATION, MANJERI, REP.BY N.VALEED, MANAGING PARTNER. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAGHUNATH SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, MANJERI. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COM.TAXES, MALAPPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 5801 of 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated, this the 8th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved of Ext.P4 order passed by the 1st respondent whereby huge tax liability has been mulcted upon the petitioner without giving an opportunity of hearing. The specific case of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent has simply passed the very same order which was passed earlier on 14.09.2009 pursuant to Ext.P1, simply striking off the date and incorporating the new date as '06.01.2010', on dismissal of the concerned appeal by the Tribunal. 2. The sequence of events shows that Ext.P1 notice under Section 9(2) of CST Act was issued to the petitioner on 26.08.2009, pursuant to the order dated 24.08.2009 by the 2nd respondent; but the petitioner chose to approach the Tribunal by filing a 2nd appeal, where interim stay was granted as borne by Ext.P3. Subsequently, the appeal itself was heard by the Tribunal, but interference was declined. In the said circumstance, without issuing any notice or giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the 1st respondent simply took up the earlier order passed on '14.09.2009', scored off the date and substituted the same by '06.01.2010', thus issuing Ext.P4 which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. WP(C) No.5801/2010 2 3. The learned Government Pleader submits that the final verdict was passed on 11.11.2009 and a copy of the order was served to the respondent on 05.01.2010 and it was thereafter that Ext.P4 order was passed on the next day. But even going by Ext.P4, it very much reveals that the sequence of events leading to Ext.P4 has been clearly described by the 1st respondent in opening paragraph, where a reference is made to the order dated 24.08.2009 passed by the 2nd respondent and absolutely nothing has been stated as to the proceedings before the Tribunal or the final order passed on 11.11.2009 whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. This by itself shows that the averments raised by the petitioner in the Writ Petition are very much plausible. In the above circumstance, this Court finds that Ext.P4 is not liable to be held as correct or sustainable and accordingly, the same is set aside. The 1st respondent is directed to consider the matter afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and this shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc