IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2009 / 20TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27391 of 2009(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.V.ABRAHAM, CHERUTHOTTIL HOUSE, THAMMANIMATTOM KARA, RAMAMANGALAM-686683. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY SRI.V.V.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.G.HARIKRISHNAN (TRIPUNITHURA) SRI.MAHESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. FAST TRACK ASSESSMENT TEAM, NO.VIII, COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERY. 2. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL ASSESSMENT DEPARTMENT, MATTANCHERY, KOCHI-2. BY G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: PHOTOCOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.13.1.2009 COMMUNICATED ON 11.6.2009 ISSUED BY R1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. P2: PHOTOCOPY OF RETURN OF ASSESSMENT TOGETHER WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2003-04. P3: PHOTOCOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.4.5.2009 SERVED ON 11.6.2009. P4: PHOTOCOPY OF RETURN OF ASSESSMENT FOR THE YAR 2004-05 TOGETHER WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER. P5: PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE DT.7.9.2009 ISSUED BY INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, MATTANCHERY. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.27391 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 12th day of October, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The petitioner has approached this court challenging Ext.P1 and P3 assessment orders for the years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 issued by the Fast Track team under Section 17D of the KGST Act. While the case of the petitioner is that the entire turnover is assessable as civil work under Section 7(7) of the KGST Act, the Fast Track team has assessed part of the turnover at the rate of 5.75%. It is seen from the orders that the Fast Track team has not even issued pre-assessment notice to the assessee. We have already held in batch cases that if a consent order cannot be issued, the Fast Track team should consider the return and claims made, which in this case is rate of tax with reference to the contract work executed, and issue pre-assessment notice, give opportunity to file written objections and decide the matter in their meeting after hearing the party. Since the mandatory procedure is not followed, we allow the W.P.(C) by vacating Exts.P1 and P3 orders of the Fast Track team with direction to the petitioner to produce the 2 entire contract copies before the Fast Track team along with copy of this judgment, for them to reconsider the assessment and pass fresh orders under Section 17D. We make it clear that the assessment should be considered in the meeting of all the team members together and after deliberations among them. If petitioner's claim is not acceptable, it is for the team to issue a pre-assessment notice containing reasons for assessment in deviation from the returns filed and then after giving opportunity for filing objections and after giving a hearing to the assessee, which again should be by the Fast Track team members together, order should be passed. There will be direction to the Fast Track team to complete the assessment afresh within three months from today. The petitioner will produce copy of this judgment immediately on receipt of the same along with copies of contract before the Fast Track team for them to complete assessment within the time stipulated above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms