IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2009 / 11TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18529 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- E.K.MOHAMED IQBAL,S/O.BEERANKUTTY, PROPRIETOR, HINDUSTHAN RUBBERS PATTIYATTU HOUSE, IRUMBUNCHOLA POST A.R. NAGAR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL MR. K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY , COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE FAST TRACK ASSESSMENT TEAM TEAM NO.1 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, MANJERI. 3. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (AA) SALES TAX OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES TIRURANGADI. 4. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, (AA) SALES TAX OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES TIRUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 18529 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 2nd day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the fast track assessment made by the second respondent under the relevant provisions of law as borne by Ext.P4 to P9, on many a ground. The petitioner, though is very much aware of the availability of the statutory remedy and the course to be pursued has chosen to approach this Court, challenging the constitutional validity of the relevant provisions of law; which has been answered against him by the decision rendered by this Court in Viani Paper Mills Vs. Fast Track Team (2008 (2) KLT 511). 2. However, it is to be noted that Exts.P4 to P9 orders, have been passed by the fast track team consisting of only 3 members, which will not satisfy the requirement in view of the statutory prescription and the holding that such assessment has to be made by a team consisting of 4 members and also bearing the signature of all the 4 members, who are in the team. This being the position, Ext.P4 to P9 orders, obviously having been passed by the team consisting of three members cannot have any existence under the the relevant provisions of law. 3. In the above circumstances, Exts. P4 to P9 are set aside and the 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and the judicial precedents WP (C) No. 18529 of 2009 : 2 : on the point. Proceedings as above shall be finalized as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Since the impugned orders have already been set aside, the petitioner shall not be proceeded against, by way of coercive steps, unless and until fresh orders are passed by the second respondent as made clear above. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd