JUDGMENT

Petitioner challenges Exts.P1 and P2 orders dated

05.06.2018 passed under Section 48(3) of the KVAT Act as illegal and violative of principles of natural justice.

2. Adv.Anitha Mathai Muthirenthy contends that the denial of reasonable opportunity can be properly established from the very finding recorded in Ext.P1 by the respondent.

3. The finding on completion of service of notice is stated as follows:

“This Office notice vide read 2nd above was communicated by RP AD to the consignor, owner and driver of the vehicle giving them an opportunity of being heard in person and also to file objections if any to the same. Even though the notice was seen acknowledged by the consignor on 13.04.2018, the acknowledgement card filed in this file. The notices in respect of the owner of the vehicle not responded. Also the same are returned by the postal authorities as “no such addressee in the door number” respectively. The driver of the vehicle notice was seen acknowledged on 04.04.2018. Subsequently I had perused the KVATIS it is seen that still pending TP in the exit checkpost at Gopalapuram.

Hence it was confirmed that the consignor had no valid objection against the proposal and the own