IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2011 / 27TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 22459 of 2011(F) ------------------------ PETITIONER : --------------------- C.HAMZA, MARBLE WORLD, KOTTACHERRY, KANHANGAD, KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SMT.K.HYMAVATHY RESPONDENT : ---------------------- THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, HOSDURG-671 315. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 22459 of 2011(F) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN S.T.REV. NO. 285/2003 DATED 25.11.2004. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY RESPONDENT DATED 21.02.2011. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE INVOICE OF M/S. MAHAMAYA TRADERS, COCHIN NO. 587 DATED 8.4.1999. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE INVOICE OF M/S. MAHAMAYA TRADERS, COCHIN NO. 588 DATED 8.4.1999. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE PRE-ASSESSMENT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 17(3) OF THE KGST RULES ISSUED BY RESPONDENT DATED 07.07.2011. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN TRC NOS. 97, 101 AND 102 OF 1985 DATED 08.07.1987. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 22459 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 18th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 notice under Section 17(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act on the ground that in Ext.P1 judgment, a Division Bench of this Court in S.T.Rev. No.285/2003, had given a specific direction to the assessing authority to give an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses before proceeding further, which has not been granted. The petitioner further points out that in Ext.P6 judgment also, a Division Bench of this Court has upheld the right of the assessee for cross-examination of a witness, whose statement is proposed to be relied upon against the assessee. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. Insofar as Ext.P5 is only a notice, I am of opinion that the petitioner can raise all his contentions in the reply to the same including the contention that as per Ext.P1 judgment, the petitioner should have been afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements are proposed to be relied upon, even before issue of Ext.P5 notice. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The petitioner shall file objections to Ext.P5 notice taking all his w.p.c.22459/11 2 contentions in the objections. The respondent shall consider the objections in the light of Exts.P1 and P6 judgments and, if the contentions of the petitioner are correct, afford an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the persons whose statements are proposed to be relied upon by the respondent. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge