IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 13TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3291 of 2010(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.P.MOHAMMED SHAHAN, SHAHAN NILAVAS, IRUMBUZHI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (KVAT) COMMERCIAL TAXES, MALAPPURAM. 4. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, (WORKS CONTRACT & LUXURY TAX) OFFICE OF THE DY.COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, MALAPPURAM. 5. TAHSILDAR, ERANAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 3291 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 2nd February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The challenge in the present Writ Petition is mainly two fold; firstly regarding the constitutional validity of sub section (5) of Section 17D of the KGST Act, which stipulates that the party who intends to challenge the order passed under Section 17D will have to satisfy the entire liability, so as to cause the appeal to be entertained on merits . This issue has already been covered by the decision of this Court rendered in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam and others ( 2009(4) KHC 819). The next issue is whether the Fast Track Team has complied with the statutory requirement while doing assessment in the manner as explained by this Court in the very same decision. 2. Taking note of the actual facts and figures, the learned Government Pleader very fairly conceded that the impugned W.P.(C) No. 3291 OF 2010 2 proceedings are not in tune with the statutory requirements and do not satisfy the mandate given by this Court in the decision cited supra; simultaneously adding that the matter could be caused to be re-considered. 3. In the above facts and circumstances, Exts.P1 and P2 impugned orders are hereby set aside, but without prejudice to the right of the competent authority to consider the matter afresh and to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law and also in the light of the observation made by this Court in 2009(4) KHC 819 (cited supra). Since the impugned orders have been set aside, the consequential demand notice as borne by Ext.P6, issued under the Revenue Recovery Act is declared as of no consequence and will not be acted upon for the time being. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk