IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 29410 of 2011(A) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- T.P. ANTONY, S/O. PAULOSE, RESIDING AT THOTTATHIL HOUSE, UDEYAMPEROOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN, SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH, SMT.M.C.SANITHA, SRI.V.S.SHIRAZ BAVA. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE FAST TRACK TEAM-COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM-682 018. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (WORKS CONTRACT), OFFICER OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM-682 018. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM-682 018. 4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER TO COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-690 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 29410 of 2011(A) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ANNUAL RETURN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM NO.9 PERTAINING TO THE YEAR 2003-2004. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 06/01/2011 ALONG WITH THE DEMAND NOTICE. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION KGST NO.23280794. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING DATED 31/08/2011 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE KERALA REVENUE RECOVERY ACT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 29410 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 assessment order passed under Section 17D of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act by a fast track team, on the ground that the same has been passed in violation of the procedure prescribed under the Act for such kind of assessments. The petitioner submits that the petitioner appeared before the fast track team before assessment and objected to the assessment. But wrongly it has been stated in Ext.P2 assessment order that the petitioner has agreed for the assessment as done in Ext.P2. The petitioner challenges the statement in Ext.P2 that the petitioner has agreed to the assessment. In view of the averments of the petitioner, I directed the learned Government Pleader to get instructions as to whether there is anything on record to show that the petitioner had agreed to the assessment as claimed in Ext.P2. The learned Government Pleader today submits that there is nothing on record to prove such agreement. That being so, the statement in Ext.P2 cannot be accepted on face value. Even otherwise, I find in Ext.P2 that what has been stated is “The assessee has agreed to assess the turnover which is not supported by evidences/documents.” There is nothing therein to show which w.p.c.29410/11 - : 2 :- turnover, the petitioner has agreed is not supported by evidences or documents. Therefore, I am satisfied that Ext.P2 has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. On that ground Ext.P2 is quashed. However, this will not stand in the way of the 1st respondent making fresh assessment in accordance with law, after affording adequate opportunity to the petitioner as contemplated under the provisions of Section 17D of the Act. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge