JUDGMENT : The petitioner is aggrieved with the non consideration of Ext.P4 rectification application filed under Section 66 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ('Act' for short). The petitioner has also filed an appeal from the assessment order, as is seen from Ext.P5 memorandum. The petitioner is a works contractor who opted for compounding and filed returns for the Assessment Year 2013-2014, based on which a notice was issued under Section 25(1) of the Act. An Order was also passed at Ext.P3. The petitioner is said to have filed Ext.P4 rectification application on 13.12.2016. An appeal too was filed on 31.12.2016, as is seen from Ext.P5. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that a reading of Exts.P3 and P4 would indicate that the petitioner was not heard properly and that on 19.08.2016, when the petitioner had appeared, the Assessing Authority was on leave. The Assessing Officer has made the assessment on best judgment, after scrutiny of the returns and Form No.49, for reason of the petitioner having not produced any documents or registered sale deeds, in order to prove the contentions raised in the objections. It was also noticed that the assessee has not produced any proof regarding refund of money. 3. It is submitted that the proof is now produced as per Ext.P4. Essentially, what the petitioner seeks is a rehearing of the matter. A reading of Ext.P3 would indicate that the petitioner was granted ample opportunity to file objections and produce the documents in support of such objections. The petitioner, as is seen from Ext.P3, has also filed reply dated 19.08.2016 and 06.09.2016. The contention that by the rectification application the petitioner has produced the supporting documents; practically leads to an admission that there were no substantiating documents produced along with the objections. 4. The petitioner also has a contention that the petitioner was not afforded a personal hearing before assessment was finalized. The petitioner relies on Suzion Infrastructure Service Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer (W.C), Ernakulam - (2010) 35 VST 451 (Ker) to contend that a composite notice granting an opportunity for hearing and filing of objections, as seen from Exhibit P1 was deprecated by this Court. The petitioner relies on Suzion Infrastructure Service Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer (W.C), Ernakulam - (2010) 35 VST 451 (Ker) to contend that a composite notice granting an opportunity for hearing and filing of objections, as seen from Exhibit P1 was deprecated by this Court. However a Division Bench, later to the afore cited judgment, in Writ Appeal No. 1370/2011 by judgment dated 02.11.2011 had interpreted Section 25 and found that personal hearing was an option available to the assessee and they could very well claim for the same in the objections. In that case it was specifically found that the assessee had merely requested the Assessing Officer to consider the objection and complete the assessment as per the books of accounts. In the present case too the assessee admittedly filed two objections; Exhibit P2 dated 19.08.2016 and Exhibit P3 dated 06.09.2016. The objections did not seek for a personal hearing and merely requested consideration of objections and deletion of additions proposed as per the notice. In such circumstance, there can be no ground raised of violation of principles of natural justice, for the best judgment assessment was made only due to the default of the petitioner in having not produced the substantiating documents. 5. The petitioner, essentially, seeks for production of substantiating documents and a hearing on the issue by the rectification application. This Court is not convinced that there is any ground for a rectification under Section 66 of the Act, which is only a power to rectify any error apparent on the face of the record. It does not call for a proceeding, wherein a rehearing is attempted and evidence is examined afresh. This Court is not inclined to grant the reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition. The petitioner would have to prosecute the appeal filed against the assessment order. 6. The petitioner hence, undertakes to pay 20% of the tax demanded, upon which the proviso to Section 55(4) of the Act provides for the demand to be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal. The petitioner shall pay 20% of the tax demanded within a period of three weeks and on such payment, the recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance till the appeal is disposed of. The writ petition is dismissed with the above direction.