IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 27TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3969 of 2010(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S. HAGMEYER INDIA LTD., NOW GRAINGER INDUSTIRAL SUPPLY INDIA PVT. LTD., OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ROOM NO.B 541/3940, LILGI ESTATE, KOCHI-18, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGANATORY GIGHEESH BABU. BY ADV. SMT.S.K.DEVI SRI.SANTHOSH P.ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPL. CIRCLE III, COMMERCIAL TAX COMPLEX, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-15. 2. THE FAST TRACK TEAM, DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES SPL. CIRCLE III, ERNAKULAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 3969 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated, this the 16th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext.P6 assessment order passed under Section 17 D of the KGST Act. Many a ground has been raised in the Writ Petition, both legal and factual, in support of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was never served with any pre-assessment notice in connection with the above proceedings, obviously for the reason that the notice was stated as issued in the 'old address'; whereas the change of address had already been informed to all concerned and has been incorporated by Exts.P1, P2 and P3 certificates as well. The learned counsel further submits that Ext.P6 order has however been communicated to the petitioner in the correct address, as borne by Ext.P7. It is the contention of the petitioner that the proceedings could not be effectively defended by the petitioner and hence is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. During the course of hearing, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that the proceedings pursued by the concerned authority, i.e., the second respondent 'Fast Track Team' are not in conformity with WP(C) No.3969/2010 2 the statutory requirements and mandate as per the decision rendered by this Court and reported in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala [2009 (4) KHC 819]. In the above facts and circumstances, Ext.P6 order cannot have any valid existence in law and accordingly, the same is set aside. The second respondent/competent authority is directed to reconsider the matter and finalise the proceedings after issuing a proper notice to the petitioner in the correct address, in accordance with law. The proceedings in this regard shall be finalized, 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 accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc