IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2011 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 3679 of 2011(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SEBEL INFOSYS, MALABAR TOWER, KANNUR, REP. BY ITS PARTNER P.V.IQBAL. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KANNUR, PIN-670 001. 2. FAST TRACK SITTING TEAM, OFFICE OF THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PIN-670 001. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. BY ADV.SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDDEEN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 3679 of 2011(H) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :- P1 :- COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 19.11.2009 P2 :- COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ami/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.3679 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 order of assessment finalised against the petitioner for the assessment year 2004-05, under Section 17 D of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (KGST Act), is under challenge in this writ petition. Contention of the petitioner is that, the assessment was finalised by the 2nd respondent in total violation of the procedure contemplated under the relevant provisions. According to the petitioner, no notice proposing the assessment was served on him and the petitioner was not afforded with any opportunity to object such proposal. It is further pointed out that Ext.P1 order is totally non-speaking. Even though the petitioner had filed returns, the exemptions claimed in the return was denied through a totally non-speaking order, without mentioning any reason. Therefore, Ext.P1 is unsustainable in the eye of law, is the contention. 2. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of 2 W.P.(C).No.3679 of 2011 respondents pointed out that the impugned order Ext.P1 was issued as early as in November, 2009 and there is an inordinate delay in challenging the same. Per contra, counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was not issued with a copy of the order of assessment within any reasonable time. 3. However, I noticed that Ext.P1 is a totally non speaking order. Even in the reference portion it is mentioned that, a pre-assessment notice was issued but nothing is stated as to whether such notice was received by the petitioner or as to whether there was any failure on the part of the petitioner in filing reply. It is also noticed that the claim raised for exemption was denied without mentioning any reason. It is also not discernible as to whether any notice regarding personal hearing was issued to the petitioner before finalisation of the assessment. Altogether it is evident that, the assessments is finalised in a cryptic manner lacking proper application of mind. 4. Under the above mentioned circumstances, Ext.P1 3 W.P.(C).No.3679 of 2011 will not stand the test of sustainability and compliance of the mandatory procedure. Hence, I am inclined to quash Ext.P1. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P1 order of assessment is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to finalise the assessment afresh, either under Section 17 D or under Section 17(3) of the KGST Act, after affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to file objections and also to produce documents in support of the contentions. Needless to say that, before passing fresh order, the petitioner shall be provided with an opportunity of personal hearing. 6. Fresh order in this regard shall be issued, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/