IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MAY 2010 / 29TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14399 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- WE THREE ENTERPRISES, KARAVALOOR, PUNALUR REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER V.A.ISAQ. BY ADV. MR. PHILIP T.VARGHESE MR. THOMAS T.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE FAST TRACK ADALATH TEAM NO.V, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTARAKARA. 2. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTARAKARA. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. 4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), TALUK OFFICE, PATHANAPURAM. BY ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 14399 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 19th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved of Exts. P1 and P2 assessment orders passed by the first respondent Fast Track Team under Section 17 D KGST Act. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders, though stated as passed by a team consisting of four members, they are actually issued and signed only by the second respondent, which is not sufficient so as to sustain the course contemplated under the relevant provision, as made clear by this Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (2009 (4) KHC 819). The learned counsel submits that some other contentions are also there, as raised in Ground B of the Writ Petition, with reference to Section 17 C of the Act. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. On going through the materials on record, it is very much evident that the course pursued by the Fast Track Team is not correct or sustainable, being contrary to the dictum in the decision cited supra. 5. In the said circumstances, the impugned orders (Ext.P1 and P2) are set aside and the first respondent/such other authority as the case may be, is directed to reconsider the matter and pass appropriate W.P. (C) No. 14399 of 2010 : 2 : orders in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made by this Court as per the decision cited supra, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd