Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 1 docs
Suzion Infrastructure Service ... vs The Commercial Tax Officer (W.C) on 2 June, 2010

User Queries
Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Kerala High Court
M.M.Mammu vs Commercial Tax Officer on 30 September, 2010




WP(C).No. 29360 of 2010(T)

                      ...  Petitioner


                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SMT.T.RADHAMANY

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM

 Dated :30/09/2010

 O R D E R
                         C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J
                     W.P(C) No.29360 of 2010-T
                   this the 30th day of September,

                           J U D G M E N T

Challenge is against Exts.P5 and P5(a) orders of assessments, issued under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act 2003 (KVAT Act) for the years 2006-07 and 2007-08. The petitioner is challenging the assessments without invoking the appellate remedy, on the basis that those assessments were finalised without adhering to the procedure mandated under the relevant provisions. It is specifically contended that no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner inspite of specific request made in this regard. It is also brought to my notice that in the proposal notices issued, the petitioner was requested to file objections within seven days. At the same time it was mentioned therein that opportunity of hearing was afforded within the said time limit. Learned counsel for the petitioner had pointed a decision of this Court in Suzion Infrastructure Service Ltd. V. Commercial Tax Officer (W.C), Ernakulam (2010(3) KHC 299 (Ker), wherein this Court held that issuing a composite notice calling for objections as well as affording an opportunity for hearing even prior to filing of such objections, W.P(C) No.29360 of 2010-T 2 will not be sufficient and an effective opportunity of hearing should be provided after filing objections, in order to have due compliance of the procedure contemplated under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. On a perusal of the proposal notice as well as the orders of assessments, it is evident that no effective opportunity for personal hearing was afforded after submission of the objections.

2. Under the above circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that Exts.P5 and P5(a) are unsustainable in the eye of law. Hence the writ petition is allowed and those orders are hereby quashed. The first respondent is directed to finalise the assessments afresh, after affording a reasonable opportunity for personal hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner should also be permitted to produce Books of Accounts and other documents to substantiate his claims. Fresh assessment shall be finalised as directed above, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.


                                  C.K.ABDUL REHIM

                            //True Copy//

ab                                      P.A to Judge