IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2011 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 2494 of 2011(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.P.JOHN, CONTRACTOR,PANACKAL HOUSE, POWER HOUSE WARD, ALAPPUZHA-688001 BY ADV. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR SRI.K.UMAMAHESWAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (W.C.), ALAPPUZHA-688001. SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 2494 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT An order of assessment finalised under section 25 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act) is under challenge in this writ petition. Under normal circumstances this court may not be justified in entertaining such challenge, in view of the effective and alternative remedy of appeal provided under the statute. But, the specific contention of the petitioner is that the order in question is vitiated by non compliance of the mandatory procedure prescribed under section 25 and also by non compliance of principles of natural justice. It is contended that Ext. P5 order of assessment was finalised without affording any opportunity of personal hearing as mandated in the provision, after filing of the objections to the proposal notice. 2. According to the petitioner, on receipt of Ext.P3 proposal notice, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P4 detailed reply. But the assessing authority had discarded the objections in a unilateral manner and the proposal was confirmed, without WP(C).2494/2011 2 affording any opportunity to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the opportunity of hearing contemplated under section 25 is not an empty formality and the non-compliance of such mandatory provision will vitiate the order of assessment. He relies on the dictum laid by this court in Suzion Infrastructure Service Ltd. vs. C.T.O. (2010(3) KHC 299). 2. On a perusal of Ext.P5 impugned order of assessment it is revealed that the assessing authority had admitted receipt of the objections to the proposal notice. But in a cryptic manner the contentions were overruled. It is evident from the order that no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded before finalising the assessment. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent is also not in a position to dispute the factual situation. 3. Under the above mentioned circumstances I am of the view that Ext.P5 order is vitiated by non compliance of the mandatory procedure prescribed under section 25, and hence the same is unsustainable in the eye of law. 4. In the result the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P5 order WP(C).2494/2011 3 of assessment is hereby quashed. The respondent is directed to finalise the matter afresh after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner with due notice. Fresh orders in this regard shall be issued at the earliest 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 pmn/ WP(C).2494/2011 4