IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2011 / 30TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 11279 of 2011(H) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M/S.P.H. MOHAMMED KUNJU & BROTHERS, IRON & STEEL DEALER, MARKET ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, ANWAR MOHAMMED P.M. BY DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE-I, ERNAKULAM-682 015. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 11279 of 2011(H) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR 2003-04 DATED 12/08/2010 PASSED BY THE FAST TRACK TEAM. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 05/06/2010. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DATED 21/03/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE PRE-ASSESSMENT NOTICE DATED 01/03/2011 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14/03/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICES DATED 15/03/2011 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BASED ON SANCTION ACCORDED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.11279 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 revised assessment order passed by the 1st respondent. The petitioner's contention is that, pursuant to Ext.P4 pre-assessment notice the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 request before the assessing authority seeking some more time to file objections which was rejected and Ext.P6 assessment order was passed. The petitioner submits that, the petitioner was given only less than two weeks time to file objections and the denial of extension of time is violative of principles of natural justice. The learned Government Pleader submits that he was given sufficient time to file his objections and therefore there is nothing wrong in rejecting the application for adjournment. Having heard both sides, I am of opinion that the petitioner can be given another opportunity to file his W.P.(C)No.11279 of 2011 -2- objections and prove his contentions. For this purpose, Ext.P6 is quashed. The petitioner shall file his objections to Ext.P4 notice within two weeks from today. Thereafter the 1st respondent shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass fresh assessment orders. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/