IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2011 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 38428 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAKTHI RUBBER INDUSTRIES, KOLLAKKADAVU, MAVELIKKARA, (REPRESENTED BY G.SOBHA KUMARI, MANAGING PARTNER). BY ADV. SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U. SRI.K.N.SREEKUMARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. FAST TRACK ASSESSMENT TEAM, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, ALAPPUZHA. REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ALAPPUZHA; INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ALAPPUZHA; ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSMT.), SPECIAL CIRCLE, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. BY ADV.SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.38428 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ext.P2 series are the assessment completed under the Kerala Government Sales Tax Act (KGST Act) and Central Sales Tax Act (CST Act) with respect to the years 2003-04. Ext.P2(a) series are the assessment completed under the KGST Act and CST Act for the years 2004-05. The assessment in question were finalised by the Fast Track team, through procedure contemplated under Section 17D of the KGST Act. Even though a statutory remedy of appeal is provided against the said assessments, the petitioner is challenging those orders in this writ petition on the ground that there is violation of the mandatory procedure prescribed under the statute, in finalising the proceedings. 2. Specific contention of the petitioner is that, there was no proper publication made regarding conduct of sitting of the Fast Track team, by publishing such news in any local media or press. According to the petitioner, such publication 2 W.P.(C).No.38428 of 2010 is mandatory in view of the dictum laid by this Court in Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam and Others {2009(4) KHC 819(DB)}. According to the petitioner, the business premises remained locked for quite a long time and no effective service of notice was there with respect to the steps taken for finalisation of the assessment. 3. On a perusal of the decision cited above, it is noticed that this Court held that, 'considering Clause (g) of Section 17D(2) it is clear that the Fast Track team should fix the venue and date of hearing for holding sitting in order to hear the parties in advance and notice should be issued to the dealer concerned and further, information in this regard should be published in local media as well '. But on a perusal of impugned assessment, it is evident that before finalisation of the proceedings, proposal notices were issued to the petitioner. But the petitioner had failed to respond to such notices. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that, the date of hearing by the Fast track team 3 W.P.(C).No.38428 of 2010 was also intimated through Ext.P1 series notices, which was actually served on the petitioner. But the petitioner failed even to appear before the Fast Track team on the date when the matter was posted for hearing. Under such circumstances, the contention with respect to the lack of publication of notice has no relevance, is the contention. 4. On the factual aspects, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner concede that the proposal notices were served on the staff who was available at the premises. But the factory premises remained closed and receipt of such notice was not intimated to the petitioner. On merits, the petitioner contends that the assessment was completed in a highly arbitrary manner and the petitioner has got enough materials to prove that the assessment is not sustainable. It is submitted that, under the above mentioned circumstances, the petitioner was deprived of producing sufficient proof before the Fast Track team and they were prevented from effectively objecting the proposal. 5. Considering the factual situation as narrated above, 4 W.P.(C).No.38428 of 2010 as well as the rival contentions on both sides, it is evident that allegation regarding non publication of the date and venue of the sitting of the Fast Track team could not be considered as a valid ground to set aside the assessment. However, it is noticed that, factual aspect remains to the effect that the petitioner could not avail the opportunity to object the proposal, nor to participate in the hearing in an effective manner. Considering equity and good conscience, I am of the view that, this Court will be justified in granting a further opportunity to the petitioner in this regard. 6. Under the above circumstances, Ext.P2 and P2(a) series assessment are hereby quashed. The 1st respondent, Fast Track team, or the assessing authority concerned, shall finalise the assessment afresh either resorting to the procedure under Section 17(3) or under Section 17D of the KGST Act, after affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to file objections against the proposals and also after affording an opportunity of personal hearing. 7. Since the petitioner is already in receipt of the 5 W.P.(C).No.38428 of 2010 proposal notices, they are directed to submit objections to the proposals within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 8. The assessing authority is directed to finalise the assessments afresh as mentioned above, at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/