IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 23RD BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27709 of 2010(K) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- M/S.ELMAG WIRES LTD,11/837,CHEMICAL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,AROOR,COCHIN-688 534, REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR JIMMY JOSE. BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.HARIHARAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KVAT CIRCLE-II,KALAMASSERY,ERNAKULAM, PIN-683 104. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------------ W.P(C) No.27709 of 2010-K ------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of September, 2010. J U D G M E N T The issue involved in this writ petitioner pertains to assessments completed against the petitioner company under the KGST Act as well as the CST Act, with respect to the years 2003-04 and 2004-05. On receipt of the proposal notices, the petitioner filed objections as evidenced from Exts.P1 to P4. In the objections it was contended that the entire assets of the petitioner company along with its liabilities had already been transferred to another company, M/s.Stable Magnet Wires (P) Ltd; and amounts if any due is to be paid only by that company. It was also stated that the question regarding liability between the two companies is pending in dispute before this Court in W.P(C) No.1955 of 2009. Inspite of such objections raised the assessments were finalised as per Ext.P5 to P8 orders and the petitioner was mulcted with huge liability. It is specifically contended that the assessments were finalized without affording any W.P(C) No.27709 of 2010-K 2 opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore the impugned orders of assessments are per se illegal and liable to be set aside, is the contention. 2. On perusal of Ext.P5 to P8 orders, it is evident that the assessing authority had considered the objections, based on the alleged transfer of assets and liabilities of the company. The assessing authority had issued notice to the transferee company also. But the said company had objected the assessment being finalised against them, contending that the transfer occurred only on 29.3.2007 and the assessments proposed pertain to previous periods, for which the petitioner company alone is liable. It is noticed that the petitioner along with one of the Directors of the company had filed W.P.(C) No.8051 of 2010 challenging the proposal notices, on an earlier occasion. The said writ petition was disposed of directing the petitioner to file additional statement if any required against the proposal, within a weeks time and liberty was given to respondent to finalise the assessment considering such objections. It is W.P(C) No.27709 of 2010-K 3 mentioned in Exts.P5 to P8 that, after disposal of the above writ petition, fresh notices were issued by the respondent intimating certain modifications in the proposal and calling for objections. But the said notices were returned unserved with postal endorsement as “Noticed/Absent”. 3. Learned Government Pleader, on the basis of instructions, submitted that a similar notice sent by the respondent dated 30.6.2010 was received by the Director of the company, who was the petitioner in W.P(C) No.8051 of 2010. It was further pointed out that W.P(C) No.1955 of 2009, in which the dispute regarding liability was an issue, has already been dismissed by this Court on 17.3.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a writ appeal filed against that judgment is pending disposal. 4. The question to be considered is as to whether there exist any legal ground warranting interference with the impugned assessments, in this writ petition filed bye- passing the statutory remedy of appeal. Eventhough the petitioner had raised contentions that the assessments were W.P(C) No.27709 of 2010-K 4 finalised without affording proper opportunity of hearing, it is evident from the facts as stated above that all reasonable opportunity was provided to the petitioner. However, I make it clear that, if there is any such denial of opportunity, the same can also be raised as a ground while assailing the assessments in statutory appeals. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to rights of the petitioner to file appeals against Exts.P5 to P8 orders. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab