IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 23460 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- WILSON JOSEPH, PROPRIETOR,'M/S.ANNALAKSHMI MATCH & PLYWOOD', MURINGOOR,CHALAKUDY,THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BOBBY JOHN SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,CHALAKUDY. 2. THE FAST TACK ASSESSING AUTHORITY HEADED BY THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES,IRINJALAKUDA. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 23460 OF 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the sustainability of Ext.P4 and P5 assessment proceedings finalized by the ‘Fast Track Team’ invoking the provisions under 17 D of the KGST Act. The main point of challenge is that, the Fast Track assessment as contemplated under Section 17 D of the Act is only in respect of an assessment pending under the ‘KGST Act’ and not in relation to ‘CST Act’. In the instant case, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the proceedings are obviously in respect of CST assessment and hence there is absolutely no power, competence or jurisdiction for the second respondent for having passed Ext.P4 and P5 orders; which hence are impugned in the present Writ Petition. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits with specific reference to Section 9(2) of the CST Act that the idea and understanding of the petitioner, as to the relevant provisions of law and the scope of assessment are quite wrong and misconceived. This Court finds that the learned Government Pleader is fully justified in making the said submission and the legal position is crystal clear. This Court does not find WPC NO.23460/2009 2 any reason to interfere with the impugned order and the remedy of the petitioner, if aggrieved with regard to the fixation of the facts and figures, lies elsewhere. The Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to pursue such statutory remedy, if so advised. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc