The assessment finalized by the first respondent as per Exts. P7 and P8 in respect of the assessment years 2007 – '08 and 2006 – '07 respectively are under challenge in this writ petition.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that absolutely no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before finalization of the proceedings, in spite of the law declared by this Court on the point, as per the decision rendered in Suzion Infrastructure Services Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer (WC), Ernakulam (2010 (3) KHC 299). On receipt of Exts. P1 and P2 notices, the petitioner submitted Exts. P3 and P4 explanations. After submitting the explanation, the proceedings were hastily finalized as per Exts. P7 and P8, without intimating any date of hearing, virtually denying an opportunity to substantiate the facts and figures. This in turn is under challenge in this writ petition.
3. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions submits that, Exts. P1 and P2 notices were issued to the petitioner to submit W.P.(C) No. 27288 of 2014 : 2 :
objection, if any, to the proposal and intimating that an opportunity of hearing will given to the petitioner on 18.09.2014.
4. The petitioner submitted explanation vide Exts. P3 and P4 on 19.09.2014 and 26.09.2014 respectively. The petitioner sought for an opportunity of personal hearing as well, as disclosed from Exts. P5 and P6. Still, the proceedings were finalized by passing the impugned orders, without giving such opportunity, on 24.09.2014 and 27.09.2014 respectively, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. The learned Government Pleader submits that Exts. P3 and P4 were submitted only after passing final assessment orders. In response to this, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said proceedings were filed before the respondent on 01.10.2014, as borne by the initial and signature, and that the orders were finalized showing prior date as 24.09.2014 and 27.09.2014.
6. This Court does not propose to probe into the exact date on which the impugned orders were passed, in so far as the law has been declared in crystal-clear terms by virtue of the decision cited supra, holding that an effective opportunity of hearing has to W.P.(C) No. 27288 of 2014 : 3 :
be given before finalization of the assessment proceedings under Section 25 (1) of the KVAT Act. Since the said requirement has not been satisfied by the first respondent, this Court does not require any second thought to set aside Exts. P7 and P8. It is ordered accordingly. The first respondent is directed to consider the objection, if any, preferred by the petitioner and finalize the assessment proceedings, after issuing notice to the petitioner and giving an opportunity of hearing, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The Writ Petition is disposed of.
kmd Sd/-
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)