IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2011 / 15TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 11733 of 2011(N) ---------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- S.RADHAKRISHNAN, NO.6 (NEW), RAKKIAPPA MUDALI STREET, MYLAPPORE, CHENNAI-600 003, (PARTNER, HAMILTON FUEL CORPORATION (DEFUNCT), THEVARA, ERNAKULAM). BY ADVS. SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U. SRI.K.N.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE-II, ERNAKULAM-682 015. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R1 & R2 BY GOVT PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 11733 of 2011(N) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE BUSINESS STOPPAGE LETTER DATED 31-3-2005 FILED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE AUTHORIZATION LETTER FILED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 : COPIES OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS DATED 23-3-2011 FOR 2001-02 & 2003-04 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 : COPIES OF THE PRE-ASSESSMENT NOTICES DATED 24 & 25-2-2011 FOR 2001-02 & 2003-2004 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS & ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE R1(a) : COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPTS RECEIVED FOR SENDING NOTICES. ANNEXURE R1(b) : COPY OF THE POSTAL ENVELOPMENT RETURNED AS UNCLAIMED FROM THE CHENNAI OFFICE. ANNEXURE R1(c) : COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD SIGNED BY SMT. R. JAYAGEETHA. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.11733 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges exparte assessment order passed by the assessing authority under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act. The reason stated by the petitioner for straight away coming to this court without availing of the alternate remedy by way of appeal is that the petitioner has not been afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The petitioner has stated that pre-assessment notices have not been properly served on the petitioner. According to him, the notices were returned with the endorsement 'refused, not known'. The 1st respondent has filed a statement wherein they have produced Annexure R1 (b) copy of the cover containing the notice which was returned by the postal authorities wherein it is specifically endorsed by the postal authorities as 'refused, returned to the sender'. The petitioner now W.P.(C)No.11733 of 2011 -2- submits that the petitioner got the information from the assessment order itself that it was returned 'not known'. What is stated in Ext.P3 assessment order is that, the notice sent in the Mylappore (Chennai) address was returned stating 'Refused returned to sender' and in the offer envelope the endorsement was 'not known'. As such, the petitioner refused to accept the notice issued in the Mylappore address. After having refused to accept the notice, I do not think that the petitioner can challenge the assessment order on the ground that the petitioner had not been heard. The petitioner has to necessarily resort to the alternate remedy by way of appeal before the appellate authority. Without prejudice to that right, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/