9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Antony Dominic, J:- The petitioner is an assessee under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. For the assessment year 2007-08, they were issued exhibit P1 notice. To that notice the petitioner filed exhibit P2 objection. After receipt of exhibit P2 objection they were issued exhibit P3 revised notice to which also the petitioner filed exhibit P4 reply. Subsequently the first respondent completed the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reafter without issuing any notice or hearing the petitioner, exhibit P9 assessment order was passed on November 7, 2009 and was served on the petitioner on November 16, 2009. Based on the findings in exhibit P9 assessment order, exhibit P11 notice under section 67 of the KVAT Act proposing to levy penalty on the petitioner was also issued. It is in this background, this writ petition has been fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t complain of denial of opportunity of hearing in the matter. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar I am inclined to think that the matter needs to be reconsidered. Exhibit P7 notice was served on the petitioner on October 22, 2009 and the petitioner was given seven days time for filing his objection. On receipt of exhibit P7 the petitioner filed exhibit P8 objection which has been a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent order should also be considered before completing the final assessment. If that principle is applied to the facts of this case, it can be seen that as on November 7, 2009 when exhibit P11 order was passed the first respondent should have taken into account the contentions raised in exhibit P8. Admittedly this was not done and for that reason exhibit P9 is vitiated. Therefore I set aside exhibi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
