IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 32871 of 2010(H) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- V.RAJAN,VATTEKKAT HOUSE,VIYYUR.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM), SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR, SRI.K.UMAMAHESWAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DY.TAHSILDAR(RR),THRISSUR-680 020. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,VAT CIRCLE-1, THRISSUR-680 003. 3. FAST TRACK ADALATH TEAM-III,THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES,THRISSUR-680 003. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.32871 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4(a) to P4(c) orders of assessments completed under Section 17D of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (KGST Act), with respect to the assessment years 2002-'03, 2003-'04 and 2004-'05. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P4 series assessments, without filing any statutory appeals on the ground that the pre- requisite procedures mandated under Section 17D has not been complied with and there was no proper adherence to the principles of natural justice. 2. It is specifically pointed out that the proposal notices as evidenced from Ext.P3 series, were issued only by the 2nd respondent, and that the team members of the 3rd respondent has not signed such proposal notices. It is also contended that no effective W.P.(C).32871/10-H -2- opportunity to file objections was afforded since a request submitted by the petitioner seeking time for production of Books of Accounts was not allowed. Further contention is that before finalising the assessments, the 3rd respondent had not provided any personal hearing by notifying the sitting of the Fast Track Team for hearing of the matter, on any specific date. 3. Going by the decisions of this court in Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commissioner & others ((2010) 18 KTR 10 (Ker.)) and in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam & Others (2009 (4) KHC 819) it is clear that this court had specifically held that issuance of proposal notice signed by all the members of the Fast Track Team is mandatory. So also it is specifically held that there should be a public hearing with due notice, to be afforded after submission of the objections. 4. In this case, Ext.P4 series orders clearly reflect that the petitioner had sought time for filing objections and for producing Books of Accounts. The order does not reflect W.P.(C).32871/10-H -3- any specific reason as to why such request was not allowed. Under the above circumstances, I am of the view that Ext.P4 series orders of assessment are not sustainable in the eye of law. Hence those orders are liable to be quashed. 5. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P4(a) to P4(c) orders are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to finalise the assessments afresh, either resorting to procedure contemplated under Section 17 (3) or under Section 17D of the KGST Act, after affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to file objections and also affording for a personal hearing. 6. Fresh orders in this regard shall be issued on complying with the mandatory requirements at the earliest possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb