A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

1. The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P4 order of assessment that finalises an assessment in relation to the petitioner under the KVAT Act, for the period from 01.08.2015 to 03.09.2015, on best judgment basis. The main contention of the petitioner in the writ petition is that Ext.P4 order was passed without affording the petitioner an effective opportunity of showing cause against the proposal to complete the assessment on best judgment basis.

2. I have heard Sri. Rajesh Narayan Iyer, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri. Liju V. Stephen, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. This writ petition presents yet another instance where an assessee has come knocking on the doors of this court, challenging an assessment order passed under a taxing statute. Such instances have become frequent in recent times and, it is not always that this court, while exercising its discretionary powers under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, can tell an assessee off at the gates, asking him to avail the alternate remedy under the respective statute. Frighteningly frequent are those cases where the assessments are completed mechanically, and without considering the objections put forth by the assessee, that the time has now come for this Court to, once again, sound a note of caution to the tax administration in the State.

4. Under the KVAT Act an assessee is expected to do a self-assessment of his tax liability for the return period. Unless on a scrutiny, the returns submitted by him, or the tax paid by him based on the said returns, is demonstrated to be incorrect or otherwise irregular, the self-assessment done by the assessee is treated as final. It is only when there is a discrepancy in the returns filed, or in the tax paid, that the revenue authorities are called upon to determine the tax liability of the assessee on best judgment basis. As the phrase itself would signify, an assessment on "best judgment basis" is to be resorted to only when all attempts, at finalising an assessment based on available material, fail. This is the scheme envisaged for completion of assessments under the KVAT Act and Rules, as is evident from a reading of Sections 21, 22, 24 and 25 of the KVAT Act read with Rules 34, 35 and 38 of the KVAT Rules.

5. A reading of the aforementioned statutory provisions would indicate that where a return filed by a dealer is found to be defective or not accompanied by supporting documents or is found to be incorrect, the revenue authority can issue a notice to the dealer intimating him of the rejection of his returns, and providing him with an opportunity to file a fresh return, or for producing documents and accounts to prove the correctness of the return filed, within a period of 15 days from the date of notice. Thereafter, if no return is filed within the time granted, or the documents sought for are not produced, the revenue authority is expected to issue a fresh notice to the dealer intimating him of his decision to proceed with a best judgment assessment under S. 25 of the KVAT Act. This latter notice is essentially in the nature of a show cause notice, asking the dealer to show cause as to why the assessment should not be completed on best judgment basis. For the opportunity provided to the dealer to be reasonable and meaningful, the time granted to the dealer must be sufficient to enable him to appear before the authority concerned and show cause against the said proposal. No doubt, the time to be granted must necessarily be left to the discretion of the authority concerned. The discretion, however, is one that has to be exercised after taking into account the difficulties, if any, put forward by the dealer concerned and should not, in any event, be less than 7 days from the date of service of the notice on the dealer. It is disturbing to note that, notwithstanding the decision of this Court in Suzion Infrastructure Service Ltd. v.