IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2011 / 15TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17476 of 2011(H) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SMT.JOBY KOSHY, AGED 40 YEARS, PROPRIETRIX, D, J.HELMETS, VIII/371/A6, TRANQUIL TOWERS, SEAPORT-AIR PORT ROAD, KAKKANAD. BY ADVS. SRI.K.J.VINCENT (MUNDAMVELI) SRI.BIJU.P.N. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, SECOND CIRCLE, KALAMASSERY, (AT PALARIVATTOM-COCHIN-25)-682 025. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.17476/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD. 26.5.2011. P2:- COPY OF THE ANNUAL RETURN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 DTD. 8.9.2010. P3:- COPY OF THE FORM 13. P4:- COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT DT. 25.2.2010. P5:- COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT DT. 25.2.2010. P6:- COPY OF THE PRE-ASSESSMENT NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TIN 3207/1333656/09-10 DT. 20.4.2011. P7:- COPY OF THE OBOJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 4.5.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ........................................... W.P.(C).NO.17476 OF 2011 ............................................. Dated this the 6th day of July, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 assessment order passed under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. The petitioner contends that the petitioner was constrained to file this writ petition challenging Ext.P1 without resorting to the appellate remedy available under the Statute only because the assessing authority has not complied with the directions of this Court in C.K. Sunny v. Additional Sales Tax Officer (12 KTR 360). According to the petitioner, the petitioner was given only seven days time by Ext.P6 notice which is hardly sufficient for filing reply to the pre- assessment notice. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. Admittedly the petitioner has received Ext.P6 notice under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. By the same, objections for the proposal contained in the notice were to be filed by the petitioner within seven days. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed objections. In Ext.P6 the petitioner was W.P.(C).NO.17476 OF 2011 : 2 : afforded an opportunity of being heard in person on 7.5.2011. The petitioner has no case that the petitioner applied for extension of time. That being so, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity of being heard. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition overlooking the statutory remedy available to the petitioner. Therefore without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P1 in appeal, this writ petition is dismissed. sd/= S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. cl /true copy/ P.S. to Judge