JUDGMENT Assessment completed against the petitioner under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act) with respect to the year 2008-09 as per Ext. P1, is the subject-matter of challenge. Under normal circumstances, this Court may not be entertaining challenge against an order of assessment, since an effective statutory remedy is provided under the KVAT Act. But, since the petitioner raises specific contentions that the assessment was completed in total violation of the mandatory procedure prescribed and also in violation of the principles of natural justice, I am inclined to examine the issue. Contention is to the effect that, the objections filed by the petitioner to the pre-assessment notice was discarded in a unilateral manner, without affording any opportunity of hearing. Petitioner relies on a decision of this Court in Suzion Infrastructure Service Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer (W.C.), Ernakulam (2010 (3) KHC 299 (Ker)), in order to contend that the opportunity of personal hearing contemplated under Section 25 of the KVAT Act is not an empty formality and any violation of such an opportunity will vitiate the order of assessment itself. On a perusal of Ext. P1 impugned assessment, it is evident that, the petitioner had filed a detailed reply to the proposal notice. The 1st respondent assessing authority had reproduced the entire objections raised by the petitioner. But after illustrating all the contentions raised, the authority observed only as follows : "I have considered the reply in detail and I think there is no reason whatsoever to deviate from the notice already proposed. Hence the following orders passed." It is trite law by this time that the assessing authorities are exercising quasi-judicial function. It is expected that the authorities should give reasonings for discarding the reply/objections and should write detailed order reflecting such reasonings. Any order of assessment which is issued in a cryptic manner, without any reflection about the merits of the contentions of the assessee, could not be considered as an order sustainable, and as one issued with proper application of mind. Further, it is not evident from Ext. P1 as to whether any opportunity of hearing was afforded before finalisation of assessment. Government Pleader appearing for the respondent is also not in a position to dispute the allegation regarding the obligation for affording of opportunity of hearing, after filing the objections to the proposal notice. Further, it is not evident from Ext. P1 as to whether any opportunity of hearing was afforded before finalisation of assessment. Government Pleader appearing for the respondent is also not in a position to dispute the allegation regarding the obligation for affording of opportunity of hearing, after filing the objections to the proposal notice. Under the above mentioned circumstances, I am inclined to hold that Ext. P1 is unsustainable in the eye of law and the same is liable to be quashed. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and Ext. P1 is hereby quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to consider the matter and to pass fresh orders, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be afforded with opportunity to produce books of accounts and other documents in support of the objections raised. Fresh orders of assessment in this regard 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.