JUDGMENT : Mr. C.K. Abdul Rehim, J. The petitioner is challenging Ext. P3 order of assessment completed under the provisions of Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act), with respect to the year 2008-09. Despite availability of an effective statutory remedy of appeal, the order is impugned on the ground that it is per se illegal, since the assessment was finalised in violation of mandatory procedure prescribed under the relevant provision and also in violation of principles of natural justice. 2. Specific contention of the petitioner is that on receipt of notice proposing the assessment, the petitioner had preferred detailed objections supported by the documents for establishing the contentions. But the assessing authority had unilaterally discarded those objections, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is contended that the opportunity for hearing contemplated under Section 25(1) is not an empty formality and any non-compliance of such procedure will vitiate the order of assessment. The petitioner relies on various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, including a recent decision in Suzion Infrastructure Services v. Commercial Tax Officer (WC), Ernakulam, 2010 (3) KHC 299 . Hence the petitioner seeks interference of this Court to quash the order of assessment. 3. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent it is mentioned that, the reply filed to the proposal notice was meticulously considered and the reasons for rejection of the contentions were categorically mentioned in the order of assessment. It is stated that pursuant to issuance of proposals notice the petitioner took various adjournments for filing objections. Thereafter the petitioner had produced ‘F-form’ declarations and sought time for production of Form-13’ and ‘Form-13A’. The Audit Report and Statement of Accounts were filed only on 23/12/2010. Thereafter reply to the proposal notice was filed on 27/12/2010. It is contended that a personal hearing was afforded on the date when the objection was filed. On merits of the assessment various contentions are raised by the respondent to the effect that there is no substance in the objections raised against the proposal. 4. Considering the rival submissions, I am of the view that the only question which need be considered is as to whether any effective opportunity of hearing was afforded after filing objections to the proposal notice. 4. Considering the rival submissions, I am of the view that the only question which need be considered is as to whether any effective opportunity of hearing was afforded after filing objections to the proposal notice. Even though a vague statement is made in the counter-affidavit, to the effect that a personal hearing was conducted on the date of filing of reply, i.e. on 27/12/2010, no details are forthcoming as to who appeared on behalf of the petitioner and as to what were the contentions urged before the assessing authority. 5. As observed in the decision cited supra, the opportunity for hearing provided under Section 25(1) is not an empty formality. The assessing authority has to issue a notice proposing personal hearing on the basis of the objections filed, before finalising the assessment. It is evident from Ext. P3 impugned order that no such opportunity was afforded and no personal hearing was conducted before discarding the objections. Hence I am of the view that there is lack of proper compliance of the mandatory procedure and further I notice that the assessment was finalised in violation of principles of natural justice. Hence I am of the view that the impugned order is unsustainable in the eye of law. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and Ext. P3 is hereby quashed. The respondent I directed to consider the matter afresh and to pass orders after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be permitted to produce documents in support of his contentions. Fresh order of assessment shall be issued as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.