IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25673 of 2010(H)
1. UNITED TIMBER CORPORATION, MUVATTUPUZHA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :16/08/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.25673 OF 2010
------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of August, 2010
J U D G M E N T
~~~~~~~~~~~
The petitioner is before this Court challenging Exts.P1 and
P1(a) notices issued under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act, 2003.
The apprehension of the petitioner is that, immediately on filing
the objection, the proceedings would be finalised forthwith,
defeating the purpose as to the opportunity of hearing.
Reliance is also sought to be placed on Ext.P3 judgment passed
by this Court, giving appropriate directions to meet the
situation in similar circumstances.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who
submits with reference to the materials on record that the
apprehension expressed from the part of the petitioner is quite
wrong and misconceived. Obviously, Exts.P1/P1(a) notices
were issued on 30.6.2010 inviting objections to be submitted, if
at all any, within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice.
The only response made from the part of the petitioner, as
W.P.(C) No.25673/2010 2
revealed from Ext.P2/P2(a) dated 26.7.2010, is by seeking for
two weeks’ time to produce the details in response to Exts.P1/P1
(a) notices.
3. With regard to the reliance sought to be placed on
Ext.P3, it is very much evident that the challenge in the said case
was in respect of the ‘order’ passed by the concerned authority
under Section 25(1) and not in respect of the ‘notice’. This
Court finds it difficult to accept the version or apprehension
expressed by the petitioner as to the delay in submitting the
necessary objections and producing the relevant documents in
response to Exts.P1/P1(a). Similarly, the apprehension that the
concerned authority is likely to finalise the proceedings without
hearing the petitioner is also rather premature. By virtue of the
‘1st proviso’ under Section 25(1), it is clearly stipulated that any
assessment under the said provision shall be effected only after
affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
4. In the above circumstances, it is made clear that the
proceedings shall be filanlised, after receipt of the objections,
W.P.(C) No.25673/2010 3
giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Since the
time stipulated in Exts.P1/P1(a) is already over, the petitioner is
granted a further period of ‘two weeks’ for filing the objections
and for producing the requisite documents before the concerned
respondent, if the proceedings pursuant to Exts.P1/P1(a) are
pending and still to be finalised.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
(P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE)
ps/19/8