K.VINOD CHANDRAN,J. - (1.)The petitioner is aggrieved with the proceedings at Ext.P7, for reason of the order being passed, even before the date fixed for personal hearing. The petitioner in the assessment year 2014-15 was issued with two notices; one under Section 25A of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and under Section 67 of the Act produced as Exts.P2 and P2 (a) dated 14.11.2016, to which the petitioner replied respectively by Exts.P3 and P3(a). The petitioner also made a request for personal hearing by Exts.P4 and P4 (a) dated 22.12.2016. On the basis of this the petitioner was issued with Ext.P5 dated 22.12.2016 scheduling a personal hearing on 29.12.2016. However, Ext.P6 order is dated 21.11.2016 even prior to the date of hearing.
(2.)This Court hence directed the petitioner to produce the original order which is produced across the Bar. The learned Government Pleader was also directed to produce the files. The learned Government Pleader on examination of the files submits that the order, seen from the files, is dated 20.12.2016. The original produced by the petitioner across the Bar shows it to be dated 21.11.2016. The learned Government Pleader also submits that there is some difference in the contents of both the orders.
(3.)On verification of the original, it is found that the same has been signed by the Commercial Tax Officer, 2nd Circle, Kollam. The same substantially differs from the order seen in the files at page 53 to 59. This is a serious issue which results in the assessments being unduly delayed for reason of the orders passed being set aside on the ground of such obvious mistakes caused for reason of rank carelessness of the Officers. In the instant case the order, though said to be passed later to the hearing date; shows an earlier date in the original dispatched to the assessee. The copy in the files is also different from the original casting a suspicion on the Officer, having meddled with the files; which is a very serious issue.