Reasoned tax assessments and authorised surcharge adjustments are mandatory; unreasoned orders and unilateral set-off are void.

A quasi-judicial tax assessment must be a speaking order supported by reasons and preceded by a real opportunity of hearing; a bare notice and unreasoned rejection of objections offend natural justice and render the assessment void. The document also states that unilateral adjustment of excess surcharge to a later assessment year, without statutory authority, is beyond jurisdiction and unlawful. On that basis, the assessment order and consequential demand were quashed, and refund of the wrongly adjusted surcharge was directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment order was invalid for failure to give reasons and for violation of natural justice; (ii) Whether the adjustment of excess surcharge to a future assessment year was unauthorised and without jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment order was invalid for failure to give reasons and for violation of natural justice.

Analysis: The assessing authority exercised a quasi-judicial function under Section 17 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and was required to act fairly, reasonably, and after giving the assessee a real opportunity of being heard. A mere assertion in the pre-assessment notice, followed by a laconic rejection of detailed objections without reasons, did not disclose application of mind. In a taxing order affecting civil consequences, reasons are an integral part of fair procedure and a speaking order is necessary to make the hearing effective.

Conclusion: The assessment order was void for violation of natural justice and absence of reasons, and the finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the adjustment of excess surcharge to a future assessment year was unauthorised and without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The excess surcharge arose for the assessment year 1980-81, but it was unilaterally adjusted to the year 1983-84, a year not yet commenced at the time of the order. No statutory provision authorising such forward adjustment was shown. The adjustment was therefore not a mere irregularity but an unauthorised act beyond the assessing authority's power, and the availability of statutory remedies did not bar writ relief against an order ex facie without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The adjustment of surcharge was without jurisdiction and unlawful, and the finding is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessment order and consequential demand were quashed, and refund of the wrongly adjusted surcharge was directed.

Ratio Decidendi: A quasi-judicial tax assessment must be a speaking order disclosing reasons, and any unilateral adjustment of tax or surcharge without statutory authority is void as being in excess of jurisdiction.

---