The case projected in the above Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows:-

That the petitioner, who is engaged in the business of trading of motor cycles, has entered into a lease agreement with reference to an additional place of business at Karunagappally. The above intention of the petitioner to start additional place of business was intimated to the jurisdictional officer, which can be seen from Ext.P-1. It is stated that a consignment of 10 motor cycles for exhibition purposes at the new premises have been detained by the 1st respondent, as according to the 1st respondent, the petitioner cannot have such additional place of business at Karunagappally. The petitioner states that the 1st respondent does not have authority to do so and only the jurisdictional authority has power to do so. The above detention of goods was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P. (C).No. 674/2020 before this Court. When the said case came up on 13.1.2020, this Court had posted the same to 16.1.2020 based on the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner has to attend a personal hearing on 14.1.2020. But that the 1st respondent has issued Ext.P-7 order demanding tax and penalty on 13.1.2020 itself without granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is in the above facts and circumstances that the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers:

“(i) To quash Ext.P-7 order issued by the 1st respondent by the issue of a writ of certiorari or such other writ or order or direction.

(ii) To direct the 1st respondent to release the goods and the lorry detained as per Exts.P-5 to P-5 (d) unconditionally forthwith by the issue of a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction.

(iii) To grant the petitioner such other incidental reliefs including the costs of these proceedings.”

2. Heard Sri.Harisankar V.Menon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Dr.Thushara James, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents.

3. Later, the petitioner sought leave of this Court to withdraw W.P.(C).No. 674/2020 with liberty to him to file a fresh Writ Petition to challenge the present impugned Ext.P-7 order. This Court as per judgment dated 14.1.2020 has dismissed W.P.(C).No. 674/2020 as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies in the manner known to law. Subsequently, in the present Writ Petition (Civil) filed on 20.1.2020, this Court after hearing both sides passed interim order dated 23.1.2020 directing that the vehicle and the goods seized pursuant to Ext.P-5 series have to be released to the petitioner on his furnishing bank guarantee for the value of the tax and penalty shown in the impugned proceedings, etc. It is now submitted by both sides that in compliance with the abovesaid interim order dated 23.1.2020, the 1st respondent has released the abovesaid goods and vehicles as the petitioner had submitted the abovesaid bank guarantee. In the said order, this Court had directed the 1st respondent to furnish factual instructions to the learned Government Pleader as to whether the petitioner was afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the impugned decision as per Ext.P-7 order dated 13.1.2020 was rendered by the said officer.

4. Today when the matter was taken up for consideration, Dr.Thushara James, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that she has not been specifically furnished instructions as to whether or not the petitioner had been personally heard by the 1st respondent before the issuance of the impugned Ext.P-7 order dated 13.1.2020, but that the impugned proceedings at Ext.P-7 would broadly indicate that the petitioner was not heard, as in cases of this nature, where the party is heard, the said factum would find a place in the impugned proceedings. In this case, it is to be noted that none other than the 1st respondent has issued Ext.P-5(b) notice dated 6.1.2020 directing that the petitioner should appear for personal hearing on 14.1.2020. For reasons only known to the 1st respondent, he has chosen to pass orders as per Ext.P-7 on 13.1.2020, without affording any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and even before the date fixed by him for the petitioner’s personal hearing. It is indeed very startling that in a case of this nature, a responsible taxation officer like the 1st respondent violates the elementary cannons of fairness and natural justice by not even affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the affected party. It is all the more surprising as none other than the 1st respondent has issued Ext.P-5(b) notice dated 6.1.20020 directing the petitioner to attend for a personally hearing in the matter on 14.1.2020. Even now, the 1st respondent has not chosen to give specific factual instructions to the learned Government Pleader as to whether he had afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The abovesaid facts asserted by the petitioner have not been controverted by the respondents. Therefore, it is only to be held that the 1st respondent has not granted personal hearing to the petitioner before taking a decision as per Ext.P-7 order dated 13.1.2020, even though he had invited the petitioner for a personal hearing to be conducted on 14.1.2020 as per Ext.P-5(d) notice dated 6.1.2020. Hence it is only to be held that the impugned order at Ext.P-7 is illegal and ultra vires and the same has been issued in patent violation of the elementary cannons of natural justice and fairness and the said order is liable to be quashed. It is all the more so, Ext.P-7 order has been rendered on 13.1.2020 by the 1st respondent at a point of time, the previous writ proceedings as per W.P.(C).No. 674/2020 was pending on the file of this Court, which fact was also very much known to the 1st respondent. Accordingly, it is so ordered and declared. Consequently, it is ordered that Ext.P-7 order will stand set aside and the matter in relation to the proposed penalty thereto shall stand remitted to the 1st respondent to take a decision afresh. The petitioner will immediately furnish his written submission in the matter before the 1st respondent along with a certified copy of this judgment and this may be done within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Thereafter the 1st respondent shall issue notice of hearing to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgment due and thereafter the 1st respondent will grant reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner through his authorised representative/ counsel, if any and then will take a considered decision thereon in accordance with law.

5. Before parting with this case, this Court would only venture to observe that in cases of this nature, elementary Cannons of natural justice and fairness would require that the party should be personally heard by the decision maker either in person or through authorised representative/counsel, if any, and thereafter a considered decision is taken thereon, instead of driving the affected party like the present petitioner having to approach this Court and then litigate the matter on account of violation of natural justice. It is trite and it is too elementary to require the citation of any judicial authority that where the decision taken by the decision maker would inflict adverse civil consequence on the affected party, then the elementary principles of reasonableness, fairness and natural justice would require that the affected party is heard by the decision maker before the latter renders decision thereon. The 2nd respondent Commissioner or the Head of the Department concerned may ensure that necessary instructions are given to the officials concerned in the Department so that unnecessary litigations of this nature could be easily avoided.

The affected party cannot be blamed for approaching the court for ventilating his grievances and if elementary principles of natural justice and fairness are adhered to by the decision manner, the litigations of this nature could be substantially reduced.

With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.