IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2011 / 5TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 840 of 2011(D) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ PERIYANAYAKI AMMAN PLASTICS, R.V.P PUDUR, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, A. BABU RAJ. BY ADVS. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, SMT.K.HYMAVATHY. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER-II, CHITTUR -678 104, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.840 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Petitioner is challenging Ext.P3 order of assessment completed against him with respect to the year 2008-09 under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act). The assessment order is challenged without resorting to the statutory remedy of appeal on the ground that the order itself is per se illegal and unsustainable in the eye of law. Contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order is finalised without adhering to the mandatory procedures prescribed under the relevant provisions and it is finalised in violation of principles of natural justice. On the facts it is contended that, after filing objections to the proposal notice the petitioner was not afforded with an opportunity of hearing before passing the order of assessment. It is the specific case of the petitioner that denial of such an opportunity will vitiate the order since the provisions contemplated under Section 25(1) is not an empty formality and that any violation of such procedure will cause prejudice to the petitioner. The petitioner relies on decisions of this court in Suzion Infrastructure Service Ltd. Vs. C.T.O. (2010 (3) W.P.(C).840/11 -2- KHC 299) as well as in C.K.Sunny Vs. ASTO ((2004) 12 KTR 360), in support of the above contentions. 2. On a perusal of Ext.P3 order it is evident that objections submitted by the petitioner was considered by the authority. But the order is lacking from any evidence to the effect that the petitioner was afforded with an opportunity of personal hearing before finalising the assessment. Under the above circumstances I am of the view that the impugned order is unsustainable in the eye of law. 3. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P3 is hereby quashed. The respondent is directed to pass fresh orders after affording an opportunity of personal hearing and also opportunity to produce Books of Accounts or documents if any available in support of his claims. Fresh order of assessment in this regard shall be issued as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb