IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2008 / 5TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 23006 of 2008(L) --------------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ BEE TECH POLYMERS, AMAYANNOOR P.O.,KOTTAYAM,REPRESENTED BY P.CHANDRU, MANAGING PARTNER BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, II CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), KOTTAYAM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KOTTAYAM BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 23006 OF 2008 L -------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th August, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Exts.P4, P5 and P6 as also Exts.P2 and P3 revenue recovery notices. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner Firm was constituted for carrying on business on 5.12.2003 for manufacture and sale of tread rubber, bonding gum etc. In December, 2004 it started commercial production and in 2005 it was granted registration under the KVAT Act and it stopped production due to shortage of working capital in January, 2006. In 2007 electricity supply was disconnected. Exts.P2 and P3 are notices issued under the Revenue Recovery Act. Exts.P4 to P6 are notices of assessment orders issued to the petitioner on application. In all these cases, with respect to all the assessment years, the common complaint of the petitioner is that it was not served with pre-assessment notices. But, it is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that notice was WPC. 23006/08 L 2 indeed served by affixture. Then the learned counsel for petitioner pointed out that the circumstances did not warrant service of notice by affixture and subsequent passing of assessment orders in this case. In this regard, he relied on the decision in Ahammed Haji v. Sales Tax Officer (1980 KLT 770) and Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. V. Gopi ((1987) 67 STC 79). He also submitted that notice may be se rved on the address shown in the Affidavit. 2. Learned Government Pleader was asked to get detailed instructions. Today, he submitted that on going through the files, there is nothing to support the contention that notice was actually sought to be served on the petitioner and it was not accepted, which is the case sought to be set up in the Counter Affidavit, to which, of course, a Reply Affidavit also is filed. In such circumstances, it would appear that the assessment orders in question are passed without serving proper pre-assessment notice as required under law. On this ground, petitioner has made out a case for interference. Accordingly, Exts.P4 to P6 WPC. 23006/08 L 3 being illegal for want of service of notice, cannot stand and they are hence quashed. Consequently, Exts.P2 and P3 have no legs to stand on. They are also quashed. I leave it free for the respondents to proceed against the petitioner for the assessment of the years in question in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. //True Copy// PS to Judge