IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2011 / 16TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 8598 of 2011(Y) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- M/S.KARICKAL HARDWARES, 29/1388, PREETHY BUILDING, VYTTILA, KOCHI-19, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SAJEEV K.P. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, CIRCLE-II, TRIPUNITHURA-682 019. 2. THE INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM-682 015. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 8598 of 2011(Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE AUDITED TRADING AND PROFIT AND LOSS A/C AND BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR 10-11. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.32071180612/10-11(4/10) DATED 18/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 A: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.32071180612/10-11(5/10), DATED 18/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 B: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.32071180612/10-11(6/10), DATED 18/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 C: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.32071180612/10-11(7/10), DATED 18/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 D: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.32071180612/10-11(8/10), DATED 18/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ADJOURNMENT DATED 11/01/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ADJOURNMENT DATED 28/01/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 09/02/2011, FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.32071180612/10-11(4/10), DATED 14/02/2011 FOR THE YEAR 10-11 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6 A: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.32071180612/10-11(5/10), DATED 14/02/2011 FOR THE YEAR 10-11 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6 B: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.32071180612/10-11(6/10), DATED 14/02/2011 FOR THE YEAR 10-11 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6 C: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.32071180612/10-11(7/10), DATED 14/02/2011 FOR THE YEAR 10-11 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6 D: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.32071180612/10-11(8/10), DATED 14/02/2011 FOR THE YEAR 10-11 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 8598 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 7th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the assessment orders passed by the assessing authority under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. The petitioner's contention in this writ petition is that the petitioner was forced to file this writ petition without resorting to the statutory remedies available, only because the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of being heard before passing the assessment orders. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. In paragraph 4 of the statement filed by the 1st respondent, it is stated thus: “4. In these circumstances, a notice dated 18.12.2010 under Section 24 of the KVAT Act was issued to the petitioner inviting objections. An opportunity of personal hearing was also afforded in the said notice. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner appeared and requested to grant further time for filing reply, which was allowed. Later the petitioner again appeared and sought for extension of time for reply as well as hearing. Even though, the time was allowed upto 11.02.2011, the petitioner filed objections on 09.02.2011. At this juncture, the petitioner has stated that he has nothing more to submit in the matter. Admittedly, on going through the objections filed by the petitioner, they have clearly admitted the anomalies in their accounts and stock. They have also stated that “it is not possible to keep all the legal terms and other necessaries with an immediate effect to the implementation of the enactment. So if any defects are happened in our method of accounting, it is not a reason to take penal action against us”. The petitioner sought for a lenient view in this matter and to drop the proposal issued under Section 24 of the KVAT Act. Considering the various contentions raised by the petitioner and evaluating the objections filed by them the assessment under Section 24(1) of the KVAT Act was completed for the period from April 2010 to August 2010 as per Order dated 14.02.2011. The said assessment order is issued after completing all the procedural formalities and verifying all the records as provided under the statute.” w.p.c.8598/11 2 The petitioner has not chosen to file a reply to the same. That means the averment that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard is not correct. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner and leaving it open to the petitioner, to sort out his problems through an appeal against the assessment orders, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge