IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2011 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 14636 of 2011(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M/S.POONAM GRAHANIRMAN(P)LTD,MANIMADOM. AMBALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY SRI.R.ANANTHA NARAYANAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN SMT.G.DEEPA RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, (W.C.), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALAPPUZHA.PIN-688 001 2. THE COMMISIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KERALA AT PUBLIC BUILDING, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., TRIVANDRUM.PIN-695 001 3. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETRIAT TRIVANDRUM.PIN-695 001 R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.14636/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE REVISED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 25/4/2011 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. P2 COPY OF THE REPLYDATED 01/4/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. P3 COPY OF THE LETTER OF AWARD DATED 27/2/2009 FROM M/S.ROMAN TARMAT LTD. P4 COPY OF THE ANNUAL RETURN FOR THE YEAR 2008-09. P5 COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 13 & 13A PREPARED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. P6 COPY OF THE ANNUAL RETURN FOR THE YEARS 2009-10. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.14636 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T Assessment completed against the petitioner under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act) with respect to the year 2008-09 as per Ext.P1, is the subject matter of challenge. Under normal circumstances, this Court may not be entertaining challenge against an order of assessment, since an effective statutory remedy is provided under the KVAT Act. But, since the petitioner raises specific contentions that the assessment was completed in total violation of the mandatory procedure prescribed and also in violation of the principles of natural justice, I am inclined to examine the issue. 2. Contention is to the effect that, the objections filed by the petitioner to the pre-assessment notice was discarded in a unilateral manner, without affording any opportunity of hearing. Petitioner relies on a decision of this Court in Suzion Infrastructure Service Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax 2 W.P.(C).No.14636 of 2011 Officer (W.C.), Ernakulam (2010(3) KHC 299 (Ker), in order to contend that the opportunity of personal hearing contemplated under Section 25 of the KVAT Act is not an empty formality and any violation of such an opportunity will vitiate the order of assessment itself. 3. On a perusal of Ext.P1 impugned assessment, it is evident that, the petitioner had filed a detailed reply to the proposal notice. The 1st respondent assessing authority had reproduced the entire objections raised by the petitioner. But after illustrating all the contentions raised, the authority observed only as follows :' “I have considered the reply in detail and I think there is no reason whatsoever to deviate from the notice already proposed. Hence the following orders passed. “ 4. It is trite law by this time that the assessing authorities are exercising quasi-judicial function. It is expected that the authorities should give reasonings for discarding the reply/objections and should write detailed 3 W.P.(C).No.14636 of 2011 order reflecting such reasonings. Any order of assessment which is issued in a cryptic manner, without any reflection about the merits of the contentions of the assessee, could not be considered as an order sustainable, and as one issued with proper application of mind. Further, it is not evident from Ext.P1 as to whether any opportunity of hearing was afforded before finalisation of assessment. 5. Government Pleader appearing for the respondent is also not in a position to dispute the allegation regarding the obligation for affording of opportunity of hearing, after filing the objections to the proposal notice. Under the above mentioned circumstances, I am inclined to hold that Ext.P1 is unsustainable in the eye of law and the same is liable to be quashed. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P1 is hereby quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to consider the matter and to pass fresh orders, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be afforded with opportunity to 4 W.P.(C).No.14636 of 2011 produce books of accounts and other documents in support of the objections raised. 7. Fresh orders of assessment in this regard shall be issued, 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/