Court sets aside order under Kerala VAT Act due to natural justice violation. Petitioner to submit docs and attend hearing.

The court set aside the order under Section 24(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, due to a violation of natural justice principles. The Assessing Officer failed to consider objections raised by the petitioner before finalizing the assessment proceedings. Despite the petitioner's attempt to reply via email, an issue with the email address used for communication arose. The court directed the petitioner to submit necessary documents to the Assessing Officer within two weeks and attend a hearing within two months. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs, and the writ petition was allowed.

---

---

Issues:
Finalisation of assessment proceedings under Section 24(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003; Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the order without considering objections raised by the petitioner; Correctness of email address used for communication; Setting aside of Exhibit P4 order.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to the finalisation of assessment proceedings initiated under Section 24(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The petitioner contested the process, citing a violation of the principles of natural justice as the Assessing Officer passed the order without considering the objections raised. The petitioner had sought time to file a reply, which was granted, and subsequently filed the reply via email. However, the Assessing Officer did not receive the email, and the petitioner did not appear for a hearing, leading to the passing of Exhibit P4 order.

The Government Pleader argued that the petitioner was granted the requested time and chose to file a reply via email instead of appearing for a hearing. It was highlighted that there was an issue with the correctness of the email address used for communication, as the email address in the reply did not match the official one. The court acknowledged the practical challenges of relying on email communications but emphasized that the Assessing Officer should have considered the petitioner's objections before concluding the proceedings.

In light of the circumstances, the court set aside Exhibit P4 and directed the petitioner to submit a certified copy of the judgment, along with the writ petition and objections, to the Assessing Officer within two weeks. The petitioner was instructed to appear before the Assessing Officer for a hearing, which should be conducted and concluded within two months from the specified date. Ultimately, the writ petition was allowed, with each party bearing their respective costs.

---