IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2010 / 22ND ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29945 of 2010(P) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- E.VALSALA SASIDHARAN SREE VALSAM, T.R.A 9, THEVALLY KOLLAM 691 009 BY ADVS. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR SRI.K.UMAMAHESWAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER FIRST CIRCLE, KOLLAM 2. FAST TRACK ADALATH TEACM-III KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTARAKKARA. R1 & R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------ WP(C) NO. 29945 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Challenging Ext.P2 order issued by the second respondent, this Writ Petition is filed. Assessment was finalized against the petitioner by the second respondent resorting to procedure contemplated under Section 17 D of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. Based on the ruling of this Court in Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commissioner & others [(2010) 18 KTR 10 (Ker.)] the petitioner contended that there is lack of compliance of the mandatory procedures prescribed under the statute. It is contended that the proposal notice was issued only under Section 17 (3) by the assessing authority. Further contention is that no proper opportunity for submitting objections, nor any opportunity of personal hearing was afforded. As settled by the ruling cited above, there was no publication of 2 WP(C) No. 29945/2010 notice with respect to the hearing conducted by second respondent team. 2. Learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, contended that before finalizing the assessment notice was issued both under Section 17 (3) as well as under Section 17 D. The proposal notice issued under Section 17 D was signed by all the members of the team of the second respondent. It is contended that the notices sent in this regard was not accepted by the petitioner and both the notices were returned as unclaimed. The petitioner had failed to submit any objections against such notices. Therefore there is absolutely no legal or tenable ground which can be agitated against Ext.P2 order, is the contention. 3. Having considered the facts and circumstances, as well as submissions on both sides, I am of the opinion that the assessment was finalized before the petitioner could file any objections against the proposal. Eventhough 3 WP(C) No. 29945/2010 it is evident that notices were returned unclaimed, fact remains that the petitioner was not having proper knowledge about the proceedings being initiated by the second respondent. However, it is evident that regarding the hearing conducted by the second respondent there was no publication of any notice or intimation given in the proper manner as prescribed under the statute, and as settled by the ruling cited above. Considering such circumstances, I am of the opinion that interest of justice will be served if the petitioner is given a further opportunity to file objections and if the second respondent is directed to finalise the matter afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed on quashing Ext.P2. The petitioner is directed to submit objections against Ext.P3 notice within a period of two weeks from today. If such objection is received by the second respondent within the time stipulated, the 4 WP(C) No. 29945/2010 assessment shall be finalized afresh after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner with due notice. 5. It is made clear that on the event of any failure on the part of the petitioner in complying with the above directions, the second respondent will be at liberty to confirm Ext.P2 order. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc