IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7136 of 2010(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHAJI VARGHESE, AGED 42 YEARS, SON OF MR.CHACKO VARGHESE, R/AT PUTHEN PURACHAL VEEDU, EDAMON, AYIRANALLOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, REP.BY P/A HOLDER OF MRS.SHERLY VARGHESE,W/O.SHAJI VARGHESE, RESIDING IN THE ABOVE ADDRESS.PROPRIETOR M/S.SHAJI BROTHERS, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE FAST TRACK TEAM IV, AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOTTARAKKARA. 3. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICE, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHASILDAR, OFFICE OF THE TAHASILDAR, PATHANAPURAM. 5. THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 7136 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated, this the 8th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The challenge involved in this Writ Petition is against Ext.P3 assessment order made by the 2nd respondent/Fast Track Team under Section 17 D of the KGST Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner has challenged Ext.P3 by filing Ext.P7 appeal, along with Ext.P8 petition for condoning the delay in filing the same, the specific case projected in the Writ Petition is that Ext.P3 assessment order is not correct or sustainable, being not in conformity with the statutory requirements as made clear by this Court in Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam and others [2009 (4) KHC 819] and hence liable to be intercepted by this Court. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. Considering the undisputed facts and figures, particularly as reflected from Ext.P3, this Court finds that the matter is liable to be reconsidered by the 2nd respondent/such other authority, as the case may be, in accordance with law, with the specific reference to the observations made by this Court as per the decision cited supra. In the WP(C) No.7136/2010 2 said circumstances, Ext.P3 order is set aside and the 2nd respondent/ competent authority is directed to reconsider the matter and to finalise the same, of course after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that since the very assessment itself has been set aside by this Court, Exts.P7 and P8 proceedings already filed by the petitioner by way of statutory remedy are not of any significance and need not be pursued any further. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc