IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2011 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 14401 of 2011(A) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- M/S. DEVIKULAM DISTILLERIES LTD., PARAKKAMUGHAL, KUSUMAGIRI, KAKKNAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, J. ANANTHARAMAN, BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ SMT.NIVEDITA A.KAMATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 2ND CIRCLE, MATTANCHERRY - 686 005. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (TAXES), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 14401 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T Exts.P5 and P6 assessments finalised against the petitioner, under the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act), with respect to the years 2005-06 and 2006-07, is under challenge in this writ petition. The orders of assessment are impugned before this Court, without resorting to statutory remedy of appeal provided under the Act, on the basis of a specific contention that the assessments were finalised in violation of the procedure contemplated under Section 25 of the KVAT Act, and also in violation of principles of natural justice. Contention in this regard is to the effect that, the objections filed by the petitioner to the proposal notices were discarded by the assessing authority on a unilateral manner without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 2. It is settled law by this time, as held in a decision of this Court in Suzion Infrastructure Service Ltd. Vs. 2 W.P.(C).No. 14401 of 2011 Commercial Tax Officer (W.C.), Ernakulam (2010(3) KHC 299 (Ker) and other cases, on the point that the opportunity envisaged under Section 25 of the KVAT Act is not an empty formality and any violation of such mandatory procedure will vitiate the assessment. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents is not in a position to dispute the factual situation regarding non affording of opportunity for personal hearing. 3. Under the above mentioned circumstances, without going into merits of the contentions raised against the assessment, I am of the view that the impugned orders are unsustainable in the eye of law, due to lack of proper compliance of the mandatory procedure as contemplated under Section 25(3) and also because of the violation of principles of natural justice. Hence I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration by the assessing authority. 4. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and Exts.P5 and P6 orders are hereby quashed. The 1st 3 W.P.(C).No. 14401 of 2011 respondent is directed to consider and finalise the assessments afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, on the basis of the objections already filed against the proposal notices. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be afforded with opportunity to produce books of accounts and other documents in support of the contentions. 5. Fresh assessments in this regard shall be finalised as early as possible, at any rate within a period of 1 month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/