IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 11TH BHADRA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 17198 OF 2021 PETITIONER/S: SUJITHKUMAR P AGED 53 YEARS PROPRIETOR, MS.P.SAHADEVAN SONS BAKERS & BUTLERS SHOP, NELLIKODE, CALICUT-673 525.

BY ADVS.

P.RAGHUNATHAN PREMJIT NAGENDRAN RESPONDENT/S:

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SPECIAl CIRCLE-1, STATE GOODS & SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE-673 006.

OTHER PRESENT:

DR(ADV) THUSHARA JAMES (SR.GP)

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J -----------------------------------------

W.P.(C).No. 17198 of 2021 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2^nd day of September, 2021

JUDGMENT

Petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order of assessment issued by the respondent. The main ground of challenge raised in this writ petition relates to the violation of the principles of natural justice. Petitioner contends that Ext.P1 notice was issued to the petitioner providing him with an opportunity of being heard and to file a written objection. However, according to the petitioner, the date mentioned in Ext.P1 did not specify any particular date except the month of March 2021. He contends that the absence of the specific date in Ext.P1 notice caused prejudice to the petitioner since petitioner did not get an opportunity to file objection nor an opportunity of hearing prior to the order of assessment.

2. I have heard Adv.Premjith Nagendran, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Dr.Thushara James, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondent.

3. The learned Senior Government Pleader on instructions submits that petitioner was in fact aware about the date for filing objection even though in Ext.P1 there was a blank in the space for putting the date. It was also submitted that petitioner had enquired with the office of the respondent and was informed about the specific date, orally. According to the respondent, the petitioner's knowledge about the date specified for filing the written objections and for hearing amounts to sufficient compliance with the principles of natural justice.

4. I have considered the rival contentions. Normally this Court would not interfere in an order of assessment and would relegate the parties to pursue their statutory remedies. However, in cases were there is glaring evidence of violation of principles of natural justice, this Court will, not hesitate to interfere with an order of assessment in exercise of the powers of the Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. On a perusal of Ext.P4, it is seen observed that the Assessing Officer had granted the dealer an opportunity of being heard as well as to file a written objection in the matter on 17.03.2021 at 11 a. m. It is further observed that till 30.03.2021, the dealer had not responded to the notice. There is nothing on record to show that petitioner was aware of the date. If as stated by the Senior Government, petitioners was informed of the date orally, an acknowledgment to that effect atleast ought to have been obtained. It is further evident from the order itself that the order of assessment was issued without hearing the dealer.

6. Taking into consideration the absence of a specific date in Ext.P1, coupled with the fact that the dealer had not responded to the notice until 30.03.2021, I am inclined to accept the contentions of Adv.Premjit Nagendran that petitioner was unaware of the date for filing objection and even the date for hearing. There is thus violation of the principles of natural justice in issuing Ext.P4. Further no prejudice will be caused to the State if Ext.P4 is set aside and fresh assessment orders are directed to be passed after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file written objections and an opportunity of being heard. In the aforesaid circumstances, I find that Ext.P4 is unsustainable in law.

Accord