IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2010 / 14TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30447 of 2010(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M/S.EQUIPMENT AGENCIES, ROOM NO.2, POOLAKKATTAYIL SHOPPING COMPLEX, CHANDRA NAGAR, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, V.P.SIVAKUMAR. BY ADVS. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, SMT.K.HYMAVATHY. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. FAST TRACK TEAM, REPRESENTED BY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, IIND CIRCLE, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678 001. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, IIND CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678 001. 3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD-678 001. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------ WP(C) NO. 30447 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Challenge in this Writ Petition is against Exts.P1 and P2 orders of assessments issued under the provisions of Kerala General Sales Tax Act (KGST Act) and Central Sales Tax Act (CST Act) respectively, completed by the first respondent following procedure contemplated under Section 17 D of the KGST Act. Contention of the petitioner is that, the mandatory procedures contemplated under Section 17 D has not been complied with in finalising the assessments and that the orders of assessments were issued without adherence to the principles of natural justice. It is specifically pointed out that the pre-assessment notices, Exts.P3 and P4, were not issued by all the members of the Fast Track Team. But those notices are signed only by the 2nd respondent. It is held by this Court in Hindustan Petroleum 2 WP(C) No. 304472010 Corporation Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam and others [2009 (4) KHC 819] that compliance of the mandatory procedures is 'sine quo non' and the proposal notices should be issued by the Fast Track Team itself, and it should bear signature of all the members of the team. 2. Considering the settled legal position, I am of the view that Exts.P1 and P2 orders are not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, Exts.P1 and P2 are hereby quashed. 3. The first respondent is directed to finalise the assessments afresh, after proper compliance of the mandatory procedures, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc