IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2010 / 12TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23895 of 2010(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ BIJU JACOB SON & LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LATE SRI.P.T.CHACKO,WORKS CONTRACTORS, SANTHA BHAVAN,KALANJOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADVS. SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U. SRI.K.N.SREEKUMARAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WC & LT), O/O.OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 23895 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Exts.P6 and P7 orders passed by the 1st respondent on 15.07.2010, whereby the assessment has been finalised in respect of the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08. The primary contention raised by the petitioner is that, the assessment has been finalised by the 1st respondent on a 'dead person', in so far as the original assessee was none other than the father of the petitioner to whom Exts.P1 and P3 notices were issued in response to which Exts.P2 and P4 replies were submitted by him before his death. The case of the petitioner is that the father of the petitioner took his last breath on 17.03.2010, i.e., after submitting Exts.P2 and P4 replies and thereafter nothing was heard from the concerned respondent. While so, a copy of Ext.P7 assessment order dated 15.07.2010 was marked to the petitioner observing that copy of the proceedings sent to the original assessee was returned unserved with the endorsement dated 09.06.2010; that the addressee expired. This by itself shows that, when the assessment as per Exts.P6 and P7 was made on 15.07.2010, the assessee was no more and this being the position, the assessment ought to have been finalised only after issuing notice to the legal heirs as 2 WP(C) No. 23895/2010 contemplated under the relevant provisions of law. 2. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that Exts.P6 and P7 are not sustainable in the eye of law and accordingly they are set aside; without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the 1st respondent to pursue further steps afresh, in accordance with law, of course after issuing proper notice to the legal heirs of the original assessee. The proceedings as above shall be finalised, if any, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months. The petitioner herein shall produce a copy of the judgment, along with a copy of the Writ Petition before the 1st respondent, simultaneously producing particulars of all the legal heirs within two weeks. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc