IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6574 of 2008(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.A.JAMAL ,REHMANIA, VADAKKANCHERRY PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BOBBY JOHN SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI RESPONDENT: ---------------- THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (AUDIT ASSESSMENT) COMMERCIAL TAXES, IST FLOOR NINANS COMPLEX, METTUPALAYAM STREET,PALAKKAD. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 6574 OF 2008 G ==================== Dated this the 26th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts. P6 and P7 assessment orders issued under the KVAT Act. Petitioner challenges Exts. P6 and P7 on the basis of violation of principles of natural justice. 2. It is stated that on receipt of Exts. P2 and P3 pre- assessment notices, where reference has been made to an inspection conducted, in the reply that the petitioner made viz., Exts. P4 and P5, a copy of the investigation report was sought for and after furnishing the same, an opportunity of personal hearing also was requested for. It is his contention that without giving copy or affording an opportunity of hearing, assessment was completed. 3. I do not think that this is a case which justifies filing of a writ petition since the statute itself provides for an alternate WPC 6574/08 :2 : remedy. Although it is true that violation of the principles of natural justice is an exception to the rule of alternate remedy, still in the facts of this case, I do not think that this court should invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226. The reason for this conclusion is that although the pre-assessment notices disclose that the officers of the Department had conducted an investigation by visiting the manufacturing centre of M/s. Arasan Agencies, Tamilnadu, who had sold the matches to the the petitioner and on such inspection, they found that they were manufacturing matches by using machineries instead of making hand made matches, this inference drawn on inspection by the Department could have been contradicted by the petitioner even in the absence of the inspection report. Therefore, I am not in a position to hold that by non disclosure of the report sought for by the petitioner in the reply prejudiced him in any manner. 4. In so far as the denial of opportunity of hearing is concerned, the request made by the petitioner in Exts. P4 and P5 is conditional in as much as he sought such a hearing only on service of a copy of the investigation report. Since I found that WPC 6574/08 :3 : no prejudice has been caused due to non furnishing of copy of the inspection report, I cannot find any fault on the part of the Department for denying an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 5. I clarify that these are prima facie conclusions that I have drawn on the materials that are made available before me and that these conclusions shall not be prejudicial to the right of the petitioner to challenge the impugned orders in regular appeal before the statutory authority. 6. Writ petition is therefore dismissed. At this stage, petitioner seeks a short breathing time to avail of the appellate remedy. Taking into account the submissions, I direct that recovery proceedings pursuant to Exts.P6 and P7 shall be deferred for two weeks from today and it will be for the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy in the meantime. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp