P. R. Ramachandra Menon, J. –

Whether a "composite notice" is enough to complete the escaped assessment of turnover under section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 inviting objections, if any, and also mentioning about the "right to be heard" so as to satisfy the requirement under the "first proviso" to the said provision, is the point of dispute.

The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of exhibit P3 order passed by the respondent under section 25(1) of the KVAT Act, whereby huge liability is stated as mulcted on the shoulders of the petitioner; without giving an opportunity of hearing which is contrary to the statutory prescription under section 25(1) of the KVAT Act and hence is under challenge in this writ petition.

The sequence of events shows that the petitioner, who is engaged in executing works contract, has been submitting the returns as prescribed under the relevant provisions of law. Subsequently, on verification of the returns in respect of the assessment year 2007-08, the respondent observed some discrepancies and accordingly, exhibit P1 notice dated January 7, 2010 was issued, proposing to complete the assessment on "best ju