IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16309 of 2009(G) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.GANGADHARAN,PROPRIETOR, DEEPAK TRADING COMPANY, N.V.CHALLA,MENONPARA.PO,PALAKKAD. BY ADV. MR.R.SUDHAKARA MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT,GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER(AA),COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT,PALAKKAD. 3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT,PALAKKAD. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 16309 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 12th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner has challenged Ext.P2 order passed by the second respondent invoking the power of rectification under Section 66 (1) of KVAT Act, whereby the earlier order as borne by Ext.P1 was substantially modified with regard to the return in respect of October 2005. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the action pursued by the said respondent is not legally correct or sustainable, particularly in view of the fact that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner as specifically provided under the proviso to Section 66 (1) of the Act. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. The non issuance of any notice prior to finalization of proceedings as borne by Ext.P2 invoking the power under Section 66 (1) for rectification of mistake is evident from the order itself, as no such reference is made anywhere thereunder. Even though the mistake with regard to the figures is attempted to be clarified from the part of the respondents, the fact remains that no prior notice whatsoever was issued to the petitioner before passing Ext.P2 order, which thus is in contravention of the statutory prescription. 3. In the above circumstances, Ext.P2 order can subsist no more, which hence is set aside, without prejudice to the right of the second WP (C) No. 16309 of 2009 : 2 : respondent to pass appropriate order in conformity with the provisions of law, of course after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In the said circumstances, the coercive proceedings stated as being taken against petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd