IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10547 of 2010(P) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- UNNI MOYINKUTTY, PROPRIETOR OF M/S.KOOLIMADU WOOD INDUSTRIES, KOOLIMADU, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.N.K.SANATH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. FAST TRACK TEAM U/S 17D HEADED BY IAC, CT, KOZHIKODE. 3. SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE. 4. TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), KOZHIKODE. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 10547 of 2010-P ---------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext.P1 assessment order passed by the second respondent/Fast Track Team under Section 17D of the KGST Act. The petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal along with Ext.P3 petition for stay. The petitioner is aggrieved of Ext.P4 sale notice issued in the meanwhile and hence has approached this Court. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the assessment finalized by the second respondent under Section 17D is per se wrong and unsustainable. It is contended that no pre- assessment notice was ever served to the petitioner and hence immediate interference of this Court is necessary to redress the grievance projected in the Writ Petition. 4. The manner in which the assessment proceedings have to be pursued and finalized under Section 17D has been explained by this Court as per the decision reported in Hindustan Petroleum W.P(C) No. 10547 of 2010-P 2 Corporation Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam & others (2009(4) KHC 819) . On going through the materials on record; particularly Ext.P1 assessment order, this Court finds that the impugned proceedings cannot have any valid existence in law and are not in conformity with the statutory requirements and not in accordance with the mandate given by this Court as per the decision cited supra. 4. In the said circumstances, Ext.P1 is set aside and the second respondent is directed to finalise the appeal after giving proper notice to the petitioner in accordance with law, taking note of the specific observations in the decision in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam & others ( supra). This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// ab P.A to Judge