IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 13TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 22ND BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27298 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.D.PHARMACY, P.B.NO.4204, ALAPPUZHA-688011, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.K.RAMESH BY ADV. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.NIVEDITA A.KAMATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER(ASSESSMENT) SPECIAL CIRCLE, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE FAST TRACK ADHALATH TEAM-1, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (TAXES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------ WP(C) NO. 27298 OF 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Ex.P3 assessment completed under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (KGST Act) with respect to the year 2004-05 is under challenge. According to the petitioner the second respondent had finalized the assessment without proper compliance of the mandatory requirements contemplated under Section 17 D of the KGST Act, to the extent that, no pre-assessment notice was issued by the second respondent. It is contended that Ext.P1 notice proposing the assessment was issued only by the first respondent, under Section 17 (3) of the Act. According to the petitioner, the said notice could not be considered as a notice proposing assessment under Section 17 D and since there was no proper notice Ext.P3 order is vitiated. 2. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents submitted that, apart from Ext.P1, another notice as contemplated under Section 17 D was also issued 2 WP(C) No. 27298/2010 on 22.05.2010. But it is fairly conceded that even the said notice was signed only by two members of the second respondent team. Going by the mandatory requirements and procedures to be followed under Section 17 D, as settled by this Court in the decision of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Ernalkulam and others [2009 (4) KHC 819], it is essential that the pre-assessment notice need be issued by the Fast Track Team itself, which should be signed by all the members of the team. Since there is violation in complying with the mandatory requirements, Ext.P3 is legally unsustainable. 3. Under the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed, and Ext.P3 assessment is hereby quashed. It is made clear that the second respondent is at liberty to finalise assessment afresh, after proper compliance with all the mandatory requirements and procedures, as stipulated in Section 17 D and as settled by the ruling cited above. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc