IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 805 of 2009(U) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- B.M.ABOOBACKER PROPREITOR, MALABAR AGRABATHI CHEMICAL PRODUCTS POYYUR, MAYYIL. BY MR.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, TALIPARAMBA 2. KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.C.K.GOVINDAN FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.805/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF NOTICE DT 9.6.2008. P2 COPY OF EXPLANATION OF THE PETITIONER DT 31.3.2004. P3 COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DT 21.8.2008. P4 COPY OF APPEAL DT 18.9.2008. P4(A) COPY OF STAY APPLICATION DT 18.9.08. P4(B) COPY OF PETITION FOR EXEMPTION SUBMITTED BEFORE R2. P5 COPY OF ORDER DT 13.10.2008. P6 COPY OF STATEMENT. P7 COPY OF JUDGMENT DT 8.8.2008. P8 COPY OF ORDER DT 15.10.08. P9 COPY OF APPEAL DT 22.10.08 BEFORE R3. P10 COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DT 3.12.08. // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 805 OF 2009 U ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Exts.P3 and P5. A direction is sought to the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P9 after hearing the petitioner. Ext.P3 is an order of assessment under section 17(3) of the KGST Act. The petitioner preferred Ext.P4 appeal. Petitioner also applied for exemption from payment of tax which was rejected by Ext.P5 order. In Ext.P3, it is stated as follows: “ The pre-assessment notice under section 17(3) of KGST read with section 17(D) was duly served upon the assessee calling objection if any and hearing. In response to the notice the assessee requested one week time to give reply to the notice and granted five days time to file the reply. But the assessee did not turn up.” 2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has indeed filed objection. Learned Government Pleader, after verifying the file, would categorically submit that it is correct that the petitioner WPC.805/09 : 2 : had filed objection. Therefore, this is a case where even though the petitioner had filed objection, the assessment is completed as the petitioner did not turn up. Yet another fatal defect in the proceedings is that Ext.P3 purports to be an assessment under section 17D but the order is passed by one officer. An affidavit is filed by the Divisional Forest Officer. 3. In such circumstances, I feel that this is a case where Ext.P3 is to be quashed and the matter is to be redone. Accordingly, Ext.P3 is quashed and the matter will be redone in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks