IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2010 / 4TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 12260 of 2010(F) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M/S. CREATIVE CONCEPTS, NO.17, GIRINAGAR, KADAVANTHARA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 020, REP. BY IT'S PROPRIETOR, MR. S.KRISHNA KUMAR. BY ADV. SMT.K.LATHA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, IIND CIRCLE, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE FAST TRACK TEAM-I, COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDL.BENCH, ERNAKULAM. 5. THE INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 12260 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the correctness and justifiability of Ext.P1 and P1(a) orders passed by the 3rd respondent/Fast Track Team under Section 17 D of the KGST Act. The basic dispute projected in this Writ Petition is that, absolutely no notice whatsoever was issued or served to the petitioner as referred to in the impugned order, giving the petitioner time to produce the documents till 23.02.2010 and that the assessment proceedings have been finalised without issuing any such notice, which hence is sought to be intercepted by this Court. 2. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 21.06.2010, the learned Government Pleader was required to ascertain whether the notice dated 17.02.2010 as referred in Ext.P1/P1(a) was actually served to the petitioner and also to make available the proof in this regard, as to the service of notice. The learned Government Pleader submits on instructions that, the above notice was sent only by 'ordinary post' and that there is no material to show that the same was actually served upon the petitioner. 3. In the above circumstance, this Court finds considerable force in the submission made from the part of the petitioner, that no such notice 2 WP(C) No. 12260/2010 was actually served to the petitioner, requiring to produce the relevant documents. This being the position, this Court finds it fit and proper to give one more opportunity to have the documents produced; especially in view of the scheme of the statutory prescription under Section 17 D and further course of challenge by way of approaching the Tribunal. 4. In the said circumstance, Ext.P1/P1(a) orders are hereby set aside and the 3rd respondent/such other authority,as the case may be, is directed to consider the matter afresh, giving an effective opportunity to the petitioner to produce the relevant documents by sending a notice by 'registered post' in this regard. The proceedings as above shall be completed in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc