IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 29TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 4181 of 2011(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- A.G.STORES, PROVISION DEALERS, KALAVOOR, ALAPPUZHA-688522, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI.JOHN VARGHESE. BY ADVS. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN RESPONDENT: --------------------- THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, SECOND CIRCLE, ALAPPUZHA-688001. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.4181 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T Exts.P3(a) and P3(b) orders of assessment completed under section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, with respect to the years 2008-09 and 2009-2010 is challenged in this writ petition. The assessment orders were challenged without resorting to remedy of statutory appeal on the basis of the contention that those orders are per se illegal, since they were issued without following the mandatory proceedings contemplated under the relevant statute and also in violation of the principles of natural justice. 2. Specific contention of the petitioner is that, before finalising the assessment, proposal notices were issued by the assessing authority, to which the petitioner had filed detailed objections. But the assessing authority has not afforded any opportunity of hearing while rejecting those objections and finalising the assessments. 3. According to the petitioner, the opportunity of 2 W.P.(C).No.4181 of 2011 hearing contemplated under section 25(1) of the KVAT Act is not an empty formality and if the assessing authority is proposing to reject the objections, the petitioner ought to have been afforded with an opportunity of personal hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a recent decision of this Court in Suzian Infrastructure Service Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer (W.C.), Ernakulam (2010(3) KHC 299 (Ker). 4. On a perusal of the impugned orders of assessment it is revealed that on receipt of the proposal notices, the petitioner had filed detailed objections. Even though it is evident that the assessing authority had considered such objections, nothing is discernible from the order to the effect that any opportunity was afforded to the petitioner for a personal hearing before finalising the assessment. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent is also not in a position to contradict the statement made regarding lack of opportunity of personal hearing afforded. Under these circumstances, I am of the 3 W.P.(C).No.4181 of 2011 view that the impugned orders are unsustainable in the eye of law and the matter need be remitted back to the assessing authority for reconsideration. 5. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and Exts.P3 and P3(a) are hereby quashed. The respondent is directed to pass fresh orders of assessment after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, on the basis of the objections already filed. Needless to say that the petitioner should be provided with an opportunity to produce documents or book of accounts, if any available, in support of the contentions raised. Orders of fresh assessment shall be issued in this regard as early as possible at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/