IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2010 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 11479 of 2010(H) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- CENTURY PLYBOARDS(INDIA)LTD.,REGISTERED OFFICE AT 6,LYONS RANGE, CALCUTTA-700 001,BRANCH AT ALAKKALATHIL BUILDING, MAROTTICHUVADU,EDAPPALLY P.O, KOCHI-24,REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMERCIAL EXECUTIVE, SUBHASH.K.J. BY ADVS. SRI.K.SRIKUMAR, SRI.K.J.CHERRY BABU, SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN, SRI.P.R.AJITHKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,PUBLIC BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,SPECIAL CIRCLE-III,DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE FAST TRACK TEAM,DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,ERNAKULAM. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/04/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 11479 of 2010-H ---------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of April, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved of Exts.P3 and P4 assessment orders passed by the third respondent/Fast Track Team, presumably under Section 17(D) of the KGST Act. But the 'pre-assessment notice' as borne by Ext.P1 dated 9.10.2009 is stated as issued under Section 17(3); that too, signed by a 'single officer'; of course referring to the Fast Track Team, Ernakulam. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the course pursued by the departmental authorities, finalising the assessment simultaneously under both the Sections 17(3) and 17(D), has already been deprecated by this Court, setting aside the orders and directing to finalise the assessment by curing the defect as ordered in Ext.P5 judgment passed under the similar circumstances. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. On going by the materials on record, it is very much evident that Ext.P1/'pre-assessment notice' is not in conformity with the statutory requirements and as a natural consequence, Exts.P3 W.P(C) No. 11479 of 2010-H 2 and P4 assessment orders cannot have any valid existence in law. That apart, the course and procedure to be followed by the concerned authority in passing the assessment orders under Section 17(D) has been explained by this Court as per the decision in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam & others 2009(4) KHC 819. 5. In the above circumstances, the impugned proceedings are not liable to be sustained. Accordingly, Exts.P1, P3 and P4 are set aside. The third respondent/competent authority is directed to re-consider the matter and finalise the assessment after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law, and also taking the observations made by this court in the decision cited supra, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. No cost. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab