IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 27085 of 2009(E)
1. M.V.DEVASSY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SMT.S.K.DEVI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :25/09/2009
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.
------------------------------------
W.P(C). No.27085 of 2009
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of September, 2009
JUDGMENT
Challenge in this Writ Petition is against Ext.P1 order of
assessment issued by the respondent under the provisions of
Section 19 of the K.G.S.T Act pertaining to the year 2000-2003.
The main ground on which Ext.P1 is attacked is that the order does
not indicate anything about service of notice for reopening the
assessment, which was originally completed as early as on
19.09.2003, in which payment of tax at the compounded rate was
allowed. It is further contended that the order impugned does not
indicate as to whether any objection was received from the
assessee with respect to the proposal for reopening and as to
whether the authority had considered any such objections. It is also
contended that Ext.P1 order issued under Section 19 of the K.G.S.T
Act is without jurisdiction, since reopening is made after the period
of limitations stipulated under the said provisions.
2. Having considered contentions of the petitioner and
after hearing learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of
the respondents, I notice that the order impugned is totally non-
speaking on the aspects regarding issuance of proposal for
reopening of the assessment, service of such proposal, objection if
W.P(C). No.27085 of 2009 2
any raised by the assessee, advertence to any such objection etc.
Being an assessment under Section 19 of the K.G.S.T Act,
reopening an assessment which stands finally settled, the
authority concerned is supposed to issue an order which will
reflect the above aspects and also the advertence to the
contentions, if any raised. An order in a cryptic manner without
reflecting application of mind issued by an assessing authority
cannot be termed as an order which is sustainable under the eye
of law. Therefore Ext.P1 is liable to be quashed.
3. In the result, this Writ Petition is disposed of quashing
Ext.P1. The respondent is directed to consider the matter afresh
after affording opportunity to the petitioner to object the
proposal on the basis of notice already issued as evidenced by
Ext.P2, and after affording opportunity of hearing. Orders in this
regard may be passed 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
rtr/-