IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2010 / 14TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23732 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M.S.SUBBAIAH, S/O.M.S.SUNDARA MOORTHY, CHINNAPILLAI HOUSE, CHINNAPILLAI STREET, BIG BAZAR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. MR. V.V.ASOKAN MR. K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER MR. K.S.SAJEEV KUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE, PALAKKAD. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (E), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. 3. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 1ST CIRCLE, PALAKKAD. 4. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, CHITTOOR, PALAKKAD. 5. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. 6. SLAES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD BENCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 23732 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 5th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of assessment order passed by the Fast Track Team, in respect of the assessment year 2004-'05, under Section 17 D of the KGST Act. Challenging Ext. P3 order passed in this regard, the petitioner preferred Ext. P4 appeal before the Tribunal along with Ext. P4 (a) petition for stay and also accompanied by Ext. P4 (b) petition to condone the delay. The sixth respondent/Tribunal noted the defect vide Ext. P5 stating that, the statutory prescription as contemplated under Sub section 5 of Section 17 D has not been complied with so as to entertain the appeal, which made the petitioner to approach this Court. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the issue with regard to the manner of assessment to be made by the Fast Track team has been explained by this Court in W.A. No. 1714 of 2009 and connected cases (Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner and others) which has been reported in 2009 (4) KHC 819. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. W.P. (C) No. 23732 of 2010 : 2 : 4. Obviously, going by materials on record, particularly the contents of Ext. P3 assessment order which is impugned, it is seen that same has been signed by only '3 members' of the Team consisting of 'four' members, which is not in conformity with the statutory requirement and as made clear by this Court in the decision cited supra. 5. In the above facts and circumstances, Ext. P3 is not correct or sustainable and the position cannot be varied, even if the appeal is entertained by the appellate authority and the matter will have to be remanded back to the assessing authority. Hence, this Court does not find it necessary to relegate the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy. Accordingly, Ext. P3 is set aside and the concerned authority is directed to finalize the assessment afresh, in accordance with law and observation made by this Court in the decision, 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. No cost. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd