IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2010 / 9TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20292 of 2010(J) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- M/S PEEDIAKAL AGENCIES(DEFUNCT) OPP.TELEPHONE BHAVAN, THIRUVALLA-1, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT REP.BY ITS EX-PARTNER, MRS.ANU PHILIP BY ADVS. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN, SMT.C.K.SHERIN, SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES. PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE FAST TRACK ADALAT TEAM-1, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. V.K. SHAMSUDEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2010 ALONG WITH WPC.NO.20377 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ------------------------------------- W.P(C) Nos.20292/2010 & 20377/2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T The issue involved in both the cases is rather similar ie. whether the impugned orders Exts.P1 and P2, passed by the second respondent/Fast Track Team under Section 17D of the KGST Act, are correct or proper. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, Ext.P1 and P2 orders have been passed by the team consisting of only 'three' members, which is not in conformity with the statutory requirements and the decision rendered by this Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam & others 2009(4) KHC 819. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. Considering the materials on record, this Court finds that there is considerable force in the submission made from the part of the petitioners and that Exts.P1 and P2 order passed by the second respondent cannot have any valid existence in the eye of law. Accordingly, they are hereby set aside. W.P(C) Nos.20292/2010 & 20377/2010 2 5. It is the case of the petitioners that, though their application for the benefit of Amnesty Scheme has been considered and allowed, it is with reference to the liability under Ext.P1and P2 impugned in this Writ Petition it is stated that the petitioner has already preferred Ext.P4 application for rectification of the defect and that it is pending. 6. The second respondent is directed to consider Ext.P4 and pass appropriate orders on thereon, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such final orders are passed thereon, all further coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance. The issue with regard to the claim for the benefit of 'Amnesty Scheme', as prayed for in the 'third prayer' is left open, however, making it clear no opinion has been expressed by this Court. Both the Writ Petitions are disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab