IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2010 / 12TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 20458 of 2010(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M/S.MAM TIMBER & PLYWOOD (P) LTD. VADAKKEKUDY HOUSE, RAYONPURAM P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, V.M.ALIYAR. BY ADVS. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.V.K.SHAMUSUDHEEN SMT.K.HYMAVATHY SRI.T.G.ABHILASH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 1ST CIRCLE, PERUMBAVOOR - 683542. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 20458 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is before this Court mainly challenging Ext.P6 modified order passed by the assessing officer in respect of the assessment year 2001-02. The sequence of events as described in the Writ Petition shows that, in respect of the assessment year 2001-02, the assessment was finalised as early as on 17.03.2005, which was subjected to challenge by filing appeal, leading to the order dated 07.12.2006 passed by the appellate authority (which has been produced by the petitioner himself as Ext.P7 along with reply affidavit) as per Ext.P7. Assessing authority was directed to modify the assessment as specified, pursuant to which a modified order was passed by the assessing officer, i.e., the respondent on 27.2.2008. Stating that there were some errors on the face of the records, the petitioner filed an application under Section 43 for rectifying the said errors, which was pending before the respondent. However, contending that Ext.P7 order passed by the appellate authority itself was wrong, the same was subjected to challenge by filing further appeal before the Tribunal, which is stated as dismissed on 19.11.2007. 2. When the application for rectification filed by the petitioner was pending, the respondent observed that the earlier modified order 2 WP(C) No. 20458/2010 passed on 27.02.2008 was not fully in conformity with the mandate given by the appellate authority in Ext.P7, especially with regard to the figures in respect of the labour charges. Accordingly, taking a bonafide approach, the respondent issued a notice to the petitioner pointing out the above vital fact and inviting objections, if any, when the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 communication dated 04.11.2008, asking more time to file the statement of objections. The learned counsel submits that, along with Ext.P3, the petitioner also produced the relevant documents, however seeking for a further opportunity of hearing, if the objection raised was not acceptable to the authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, in fact, had also filed an appeal against the earlier modified order dated 27.02.2008 by STA 6357/2005, which culminated in Ext.P1 order on 17.10.2008, whereby the assessing authority was directed to reckon the element of labour charges and to pass appropriate orders on the basis of the relevant records, holding that the appeal itself was in nature of a rectification petition and hence that the merits were not considered. The learned counsel further submits that, inspite of submitting Ext.P5 statement of objections in detail, the proceedings were finalised by the respondent by passing Ext.P6, which hence is sought to be challenged stating that it is not in conformity with the appellate order passed by the concerned authority. 3 WP(C) No. 20458/2010 3. The learned Government Pleader, with reference to the statement filed before this Court submits that, Ext.P5 statement of objection was never preferred by the petitioner and absolutely no proof has been produced even before this Court to sustain the said contention. This is strongly rebutted by the learned counsel for the petitioner pointing out that, Ext.P5 objection was submitted in the office of the respondent; the receipt of which has been endorsed thereon, as shown in the 'face page' of Ext.P5 itself. The learned counsel further submits that, but for making a vague statement from the part of the respondent that Ext.P5 has not been received, absolutely no averment is there in the statement filed, that the endorsement made on Ext.P5 as to its receipt is wrong. This Court finds considerable force in the said submission. The missing of Ext.P5, as the case may be can only be after its receipt, in view of the endorsement. As such, this Court finds that the matter requires to be re-considered, also taking note of the contents of Ext.P5, as now produced along with the Writ Petition. Accordingly, Ext.P6 order passed by the respondent without considering Ext.P5 is set aside and the respondent is directed to treat Ext.P5 (which has now been produced along with Writ Petition) as proper objection and to pass final orders thereon, in conformity with the directions given by the appellate authority; of course after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 4 WP(C) No. 20458/2010 one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with the copy of the Writ Petition before the respondent for taking further steps forthwith. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc