IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2009 / 22ND ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 28968 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DENNY POULOSE, PRESTIGE FURNITURE, KALOOR. BY ADV. SMT.S.K.DEVI SRI.M.RAJ MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, II CIRCLE, KALAMASSERY AT PALARIVATTAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 28968 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 14th October, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales-tax Act. The petitioner opted for assessment under Section 17D of the Act and the petitioner has been permitted to pay compounded tax. But, by Ext. P2 notice, the petitioner has been directed to show cause why the assessment should not be re-opened under Section 19 of the Kerala General Sales-tax Act. The petitioner filed detailed objections by Ext. P5. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite receipt of Ext. P5 objections, the 1st respondent has issued another notice Ext. P6 containing identical allegations as in Ext. P2 and calling upon the petitioner to file objections again. The petitioner now submits that in view of Ext. P5 objections, it was improper on the part of the 1st respondent to issue another notice Ext. P6 in respect of the same matter. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “(i) To issue a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P2 and P6 notices issued under Section 19 of the Act. (ii) to declare that the 1st respondent is not authorised to re- open an assessment completed by a Fast Track team under Section 17D of the Act.” 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. I am not inclined to interfere with Exts. P2 and P6 insofar as they are only show cause notices. But, I do not understand the logic of the 1st respondent issuing the same notice twice, especially when the petitioner had already submitted Ext. P5 objections to Ext. P2 notice. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The 1st respondent shall consider Ext. P5 as the petitioner's objections in respect of both Exts.P2 and P6. The 1st respondent shall W.P.C. No. 28968/2009 -: 2 :- thereafter pass final orders in the matter, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The order to be passed shall contain definite reasoning in respect of each of the contentions of the petitioner raised in Ext. P5. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.