IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2009 / 3RD BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24348 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.DHANALAKSHMI TIMBERS, PUNALUR, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER G.SHENPAGA RAMAN, S/O.LATE M.GANAPATHY, PULIMMOOTTIL ROSE BUNGLOW, VALAKODE, PUNALUR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR. B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE FAST TRACK ADALATH TEAM NO.V, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEADER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. 2. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PUNALUR, KOLLAM. 3. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 24348 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 25th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Challenging Exts. P5 and P6 orders passed by the 3rd respondent imposing penalty under Section 45 A of the KGST Act in respect of the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-'04, the petitioner has already preferred revision petitions before the statutory authority and the same are stated as pending. The grievance projected in the Writ Petition is against Exts.P12 to P14 assessment orders, in respect of the assessment years 2002-'03 to 2004-'05, stated as passed by the first respondent/fast track team, invoking the provision under Section 17 D of the Act. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the impugned orders are per se wrong and unsustainable in view of the clear violation of the statutory prescription and also on factual grounds. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. It is very much obvious from Exts.P9 to P12 notices issued by the concerned respondent that the said notices were issued to the petitioner only on 20.9.2008. The issuance of the said notices on that date has also been specifically referred to at serial No. 1 of Exts.P12 to P14 orders. Strangely enough, Ext.P12 order has been passed by the first respondent on 4.10.2008, but subscribing the signature of one of WP (C) No. 24348 of 2009 : 2 : the members of the team on 20th September, 2008. Similarly, after referring to the notice stated as issued on '20.9.2008' and also stating that the said notice was served upon the assessee on '24.9.2008', Exts. P3 and P14 orders have been passed on a 'prior date' (4.9.2008), which does not appear to be a simple mistake; since one of the members has signed the said proceedings with a dated signature of '4.9.2008'. Similarly, Ext.P12 order also bears the dated signature (20th September, 2008) of the very same officer, whereas the members of the first respondent team further concede that the 'notice' was issued only on 20th September, 2008 and that the same was served only on 24th September, 2008. On this score alone, Exts.P12 to P14 are liable to be set aside and this Court does so. It is for the higher departmental authorities to conduct a detailed enquiry as to the circumstances under which the glaring discrepancies have been resulted and to take appropriate departmental action against the delinquent officers. 5. Another important aspect to be looked into is that Sub Section 2 (b) and Sub Section (3) of Section 17 D stipulate the nature and constitution of the Fast Track Team and the manner of disposal of cases, which are extracted below. 17 D 2(b): In the case of files relating to Special Circles, there shall be three Assistant Commissioners in the team, headed by a Deputy Commissioner. In the case of Ordinary WP (C) No. 24348 of 2009 : 3 : Circles, the team shall be headed by an Assistant Commissioner and comprise three Commercial Tax Officers as members. 17 (D) (3): All assessment under fast track methods shall be by unanimous decisions signed by all team members By virtue of the above statutory prescription, it is very much necessary that the Fast Track Team is to consist of 4 members and the order has to be passed under the signature of all the 4 members as specified. The very fact that the impugned orders Exts.P12 to P14 have been passed by the first respondent team stated as constituted with just 3 members, prima facie shows that the authority, who constituted the team was ignorant of the statutory prescription. If the very nature of constitution of the Team itself is not known, nobody can be blamed, if anyone doubts the competence of the officers concerned to finalize the assessment. However, no opinion is expressed with regard to the conduct or course of events pursued by the members of the Team, who passed Exts. P12 to P14, which is to be looked into by the higher departmental authorities. The enquiry in this regard shall be conducted and finalized, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 months. 6. As stated hereinbefore, Exts.P12 to P14 orders cannot have any existence in the eye of law and they are set aside. This will be WP (C) No. 24348 of 2009 : 4 : without prejudice to the right of the department to constitute a proper and competent team to effect the assessment in accordance with law and to finalize the matter, of course after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Since the impugned orders are set aside, the coercive proceedings stated as being taken against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance, till the proceedings are finalized as aforesaid. The Registry will forward a copy of this judgment to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Thiruvanathapuram directly. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd