IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2010 / 9TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 26979 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S. BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD., V.P. MARIKKAR ROAD, NEAR TOLL JUNCTION, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-682024- REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATION OFFICER, P.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI. BY ADV. SRI.TOMSON T.EMMANUEL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER(ASSMT) COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE, MATTANCHERRY AT ALUVA-683101. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES MATTANCHERRY-682002. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.26979 of 2010-V ---------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P8 and P9 notices issued by the first respondent. In Ext.P8, it is mentioned that with respect of the assessment year 2008-09, the petitioner had effected works contract having turn over of Rs.94,00,864/- and the petitioner had claimed exemption with respect to an amount of Rs.25,07,702/-, without opting for compounding or without producing form 20H evidencing reduction of tax. Hence alleging that there is suppression of works contract turnover, assessment was proposed to be finalised. The petitioner was given an opportunity to file objections to the proposal within seven days and was also given an opportunity of hearing. 2. It is submitted that, with respect to the works contract the petitioner has already been permitted compounding, as evident from Exts.P3 and P4, and hence the allegations contained in Ext.P8 are not true and correct. 3. In Ext.P9 notice, the petitioner was requested to file W.P(C) No.26979 of 2010-V 2 objections against the proposal to impose tax with respect to the turnover of stock transfer to the tune of Rs.1,58,85,160/-, which are not supported by 'F' forms and turnover of intestate sale to the tune of Rs.2,11,64,056/-, which are not supported by 'C' form declarations. It is submitted by the learned counsel that all the required declarations are now available with the petitioner and he is willing to produce the same before the first respondent. 4. Apprehension of the petitioner is that the first respondent may finalise the proceedings even without affording an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, despite filing of the objections, in which case he may not be able to substantiate the above said aspects. Learned counsel pointed out the provisions contained in Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act that, which provides that before making an assessment, it is mandatory to give an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Based on rulings of this Court, it is contended that the assessing authority should be prevented from finalising the assessment in a casual manner without affording an opportunity of hearing and also without affording an appropriate opportunity to substantiate the objections through production of relevant documents. 5. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing on W.P(C) No.26979 of 2010-V 3 behalf of the respondents, who submitted that the apprehension expressed by the petitioner is baseless. There is no reason to think that the assessing authority will proceed with finalisation of the assessment without proper compliance of the provisions contained in Section 25(1) and also without affording adequate opportunity to substantiate claims of the petitioner by production of relevant documents. 6. It is needless to observe that the assessing authority is bound to follow the principles of natural justice in procedure for finalisation of the assessment. Since the petitioner has been served with notice proposing finalisation of the assessment, it is for him to file objections and to produce documents in support of the same. The first respondent shall finalise the assessment only after due consideration of such objections, supported by relevant documents and also after affording an effective opportunity of personal hearing. In view of the above observations, I am of the opinion that the writ petition calls for no interference and the same is accordingly dismissed. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab