IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 12501 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.MAK AGRO COMMODITIES TRADING CO. PVT. LTD., PANAMPALLY NAGAR, KOCHI-35, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI.MAK AZAD. BY ADV. SRI.RAJU JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER-III COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE SALES TAX OFFICER IIND CIRCLE, THRIPUNITHURA. R 1 AND R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 12501 of 2009(G) APPENDIX. PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 05.03.2004. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23.03.2004. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 18.04.2005. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) 13180/05 DATED 03.05.2005. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF T HE COVERING LETTER DT. 16.05.2005 EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF T HE REQUEST DATED 13.08.2005 EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE REQUET DATED 27.05.2005 EXT. P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 29.12.200 EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06.02.2009. EXT.P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO. 1890/05 DATED 12.01.2007. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25.072005 /true copy/ P.S. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C)No. 12501 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 24th February , 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext. P2 assessment order as well as Ext.P10 appellate order passed by the concerned respondents, which are stated as not correct or sustainable on many a ground, legal as well as factual. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. On going through the materials on record, the learned Government Pleader, though placed reliance on the contents of the counter affidavit, has however brought it to the notice of this Court that there is some discrepancy with regard to the actual dates, as discernible from the records called for after filing the Writ Petition. The said records were also placed for perusal of this Court. 4. On going through the records, it is seen that Ext.P8 notice dated 29.12.2008 showing the date of hearing of the W.P.(C)No. 12501 O F 2009 2 appeals as 08.01.2009 was actually served upon the petitioner only on 28.01.2009, whereas the impugned order i.e. Ext.P10 was passed in the meanwhile on 12.01.2009. This by itself shows that the petitioner did not get any effective opportunity of hearing and that the appeal was considered and disposed of, declining interference as per Ext.P10 before serving Ext.P8 notice of hearing and hence Ext.P10 cannot have any valid existence in the ‘eye of law’. 5. In the above facts and circumstances, Ext.P10 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the appellate authority for fresh consideration in the light of the relevant provisions of law and materials on record, particularly in the light of the directions given by this Court vide Ext. P4. 6. Accordingly, the concerned appellate authority is directed to consider the appeal preferred by the petitioner forming the subject matter of Ext.P10 afresh, after giving an effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by sending notice well in advance and the proceedings shall be finalized as above, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two W.P.(C)No. 12501 O F 2009 3 months from the date from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. No cost. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk