IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2010 / 31ST JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17870 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.UNITED MEDI SYSTEMS, SMART SQUARE, K.K.ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI - 17, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MR.R.M.USMAN. BY ADV. SRI.K.SRIKUMAR SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. FAST TRACK TEAM, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE - I, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/06/2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 17870 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to Ext.P4 assessment order finalized by the Fast Track Team under Section 17 D of the KGST Act, without giving any opportunity to produce the relevant documents, for which time was sought for, as borne by Ext.P3. 2. The sequence of events shows that, the earlier assessment finalized under Section 17 D by the Fast Track Team was set aside by this Court, as per Ext.P1 judgment, for not being in conformity with the relevant provisions of law and the concerned authority was directed to have it finalized as specified. Pursuant to this, Ext.P2 pre-assessment notice was issued on 23.02.2010, on receipt of which, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 request dated 05.03.2010 projecting the following two points:- “(1) We applied for getting 2004-05 Assessment order of Chennai branch from TNGST department in order to prove stock transfers from Head Office to Branch. Also we had applied for getting delivery status report from Courier Company for 2004-05 stock transfers. (2) Please note that we had misplaced the papers received from IMCH Calicut and we had requested them for duplicate copies of the same and we are finding it very difficult to get the same from INCH in the stipulated time frame and we had deputed our representative there for getting the same as early as possible”. 2 WP(C) No.17870/2010 3. Referring to the inability of the petitioner to procure the documents from Chennai and also from another Government hospital in Calicut, two weeks' time was sought for, as per Ext.P3 request. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, Ext.P3 was submitted by courier and the same was served to the 3rd respondent on 08.03.2010, as borne by the seal/endorsement on Ext.P3(a). Absolutely no notice whatsoever was issued after submission of Ext.P3. Despite this, the 2nd respondent/Fast Track Team proceeded with hasty steps to finalise the assessment quite in an arbitrary manner, passing Ext.P4, fixing huge liability upon the shoulders of the petitioner holding that no documents were produced by the petitioner, in spite of the opportunity given. The learned counsel submits that, the above observation is wrong and illegal and is liable to be intercepted by this Court. 4. The learned Government Pleader for the respondent submits that the averments and allegations raised by the petitioner in the Writ Petition do not keep the right track of truth. It is stated that, pursuant to Ext.P3 request made by the petitioner, the time was extended up to 17.03.2010 for production of the documents, which however was not complied with by the petitioner and it was in the said circumstance, the proceedings were finalised as borne by Ext.P4, which hence is correct and proper and not assailable under any circumstance. The learned Government Pleader brought to the notice of this Court that, as per Ext.P1 judgment, there a specific time frame was stipulated 3 WP(C) No.17870/2010 by this Court and as such, the proceedings had to be finalized within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and hence haste is wrong and unwarranted. 5. The admitted fact remains that the limited request made by the petitioner vide Ext.P3 was only in respect of the delay in obtaining the specified documents as referred to under point No. 1 and 2 therein. It also rather stands conceded that the said request was served to the 2nd respondent, having referred to as item 'No. 2' in the impugned order itself. It is also stated therein that, taking note of the request, the time was extended upto 17.03.2010. There is absolutely no reference to any notice, stated as issued to the petitioner as to the extension for time till 17.03.2010, after receipt of Ext.P3 on 08.03.2010. There is also no material to substantiate the position as to the adjournment given by virtue of any endorsement, if any, informing the due date. The submission made from the part of the respondents that the petitioner was orally informed of the adjournment does not appear to be palatable to this Court; particularly when Ext.P3 request was sent by the petitioner by courier and that the same was served to the respondents only on 08.03.2010 as borne by Ext.P3 receipt issued by the courier. 6. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court on 17.06.2010 to produce the relevant documents before this Court for perusal, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, all the relevant documents are very 4 WP(C) No.17870/2010 much at the hands of the petitioner, which accordingly are placed for consideration, though this Court does not propose to examine the same, but for holding that the bonafides on the part of the petitioner stands rather established. This being the position, this Court finds that an effective opportunity be given to the petitioner to satisfy the grievance and to have the matter considered accordingly on the merits. 7. In the above circumstances, Ext.P4 impugned in the Writ Petition is set aside and the 2nd respondent/Fast Track Team/such other authority as the case may be is directed to reconsider the matter and to have it finalized with reference to the documents to be produced by the petitioner as sought for in Ext.P3. The petitioner shall produce all the relevant documents along with a copy of this judgment before the respondents or such other authority as the case may be within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such event, the matter shall be considered and finalized by the 2nd respondent/such other authority in accordance with law, of course after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a further period of one month thereafter. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc