IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2011 / 11TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 16681 of 2011(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- REXINE HOUSE, NEHRU PARK, MUVATTUPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI.K.A.MOIDEEN. BY ADVS. SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U, SRI.K.N.SREEKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, MUVATTUPUZHA - 681 661. 2. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, MUVATTUPUZHA - 681 661. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (TAXES), GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.16681/2011-I: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF ANNUAL RETURN FOR THE YEAR 2008- 09. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE AUDITED STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR 2008-09. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S. 25(I) DTD. 26/08/2010 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE RELATED BILL NOS. 2655 DTD. 02/07/2008, 2741 DTD. 17/09/2008, 2786 DTD. 12/11/2008, A 249 DTD. 04/07/08, A227 DTD 17/07/2008. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 32151432 DTD. 19/01/2011 SERVED ON 24/05/2011 ISSUED BY THE R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 16681 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 2nd day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 assessment order passed by the 1st respondent under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. For filing this writ petition challenging Ext.P5 order bypassing the statutory remedy of appeal, the petitioner raises two contentions. First is that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard. The second is that in Ext.P5 order, further additions have been made, which were not included in the pre-assessment notice. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. As far as the 1st contention is concerned, I do not find any merit, insofar as the petitioner himself admitted that pursuant to the pre-assessment notice, the petitioner appeared before the assessing officer and produced documents. That is sufficient hearing and therefore I am not inclined to countenance that contention insofar as the petitioner has not even filed any objection to the pre-assessment notice. But, I find merit in the second contention. In Ext.P5 assessment, after reiterating the proposal contained in the pre-assessment notice, it is stated that further defects have also been noticed. That means that these defects were not pointed out to the petitioner and his objections were not called for. For that reason, Ext.P5 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, Ext.P5 assessment order is set aside and the 1st respondent is directed to pass fresh orders of assessment, W.P(C) No. 16681 of 2011 -: 2 :- after issuing a fresh notice to the petitioner containing all proposal for assessment and affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The writ petition is allowed to the above extent. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/