JUDGMENT The petitioner was running a proprietory trading concern with valid registration under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act). Due to adversities, the petitioner wound up his business, with intimation to the respondents as evidenced by Exhibit P2. According to the petitioner, after winding up his business, he shifted his residence to Tirupur. Therefore, on the allegation that actual taxable turnover was suppressed in the annual returns submitted by the petitioner for the assessment years 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, proceedings were initiated under Section 25(1). Accordingly, Exhibits P3 to P3(c) assessment orders were issued with respect to those assessment years. As the demand pursuant to the assessment was not satisfied, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated under Exhibits P4 to P4(c) notices. On getting information regarding initiation of revenue recovery proceedings, the petitioner submitted Exhibit P5 representation and thereafter filed this writ petition seeking to quash Exhibits P3 to P3(c) and P4 to P4(c) and for a declaration that the proceedings against the petitioner initiated under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act are illegal, being without jurisdiction and barred by limitation. 2. Heard Sri.T.M.Raman Kartha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.C.K.Govindan, learned Senior Government Pleader. 3. The focus of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is on the time limit prescribed under Section 25(1), which is five years from the last date of the year to which the return relates. It is contended that the year to which the returns relate being 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, Exhibits P3 to P3(c) issued on 19.8.2015 are illegal and unsustainable. It is also contended that the First Proviso to Section 25(1) providing for grant of reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee also stands violated. It is pointed out that in spite of the petitioner having intimated the authorities regarding winding up of his business way back in the year 2013, the notices of hearing were issued in the very same business address. It is submitted that since the notices were not served on the petitioner, he was not aware of the proceedings initiated and order issued u[nder Section 25(1). 4. Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act empowers the assessing authority to issue assessment order on best judgment basis, for any of the reasons mentioned in the Section. It is submitted that since the notices were not served on the petitioner, he was not aware of the proceedings initiated and order issued u[nder Section 25(1). 4. Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act empowers the assessing authority to issue assessment order on best judgment basis, for any of the reasons mentioned in the Section. Such re-assessment can be made at any time within five years from the last date of the year to which the return relates. In Commercial Tax Officer, Anchal and Others v. S.Najeem and Another [ 2018(3) KLT 877 ], a Division Bench of this Court held the action initiated by the Department after the period of limitation provided, by issuance of notices under Section 25(1), to be unsustainable. A perusal Exhibits P3 to P3(c) shows that the notices sent to the assessee in his old address were never served on him. The last notice sent on 3.8.2015 was returned with the endorsement “unclaimed”. Even if the last notice could be considered to have been served, the postal endorsement being 'unclaimed', the notice issued after the five year period prescribed under Section 25(1) is illegal in view of the dictum laid down by the Division Bench in S.Najeem (supra). 5. As far as the opportunity of hearing contemplated under the First Proviso to Section 25(1) is concerned, this Court in Johnson and Johnson Limited. v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) [ 2011(2) KHC 506 ] has held the opportunity of hearing provided under Section 25(1) to be mandatory and not an empty formality. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, repeated issuance of letters to an address from which the petitioner had shifted with notice to the respondents, would not amount to satisfy the requirement of reasonable opportunity of hearing mandated under Section 25(1). The learned Senior Government Pleader submits that in the case of the petitioner, Section 42 would apply, in which case there is no bar for initiating proceedings. The impugned proceedings having been initiated under Section 25(1), which I find to be unsustainable, this Court need not venture to decide as to whether proceedings can be initiated under other provisions of the Act, which is the prerogative of the Department, based on the statutory provisions. In the result, the writ petition is allowed by quashing Exhibits P3 to P3(c) and P4 to P4(c). No order as to costs.