IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 23RD BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 25767 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANUP VARGHESE, PROPRIETOR, AMPIYIL CAR SHOPEE, ADOOR. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SMT.NIVEDITA A. KAMATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ADOOR. 2. FAST TRACK ASSESSMENT TEAM III, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (TAXES), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.25767 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Petitioner is challenging Exts.P1 and P2 assessments made under Section 17D of the KGST Act and the consequential demands issued. Contention of the petitioner is that no pre- assessment notice was issued before finalising the assessment and hence the assessments are unsustainable under law. In support of this contention the petitioner points out a Division Bench ruling of this Court in Viani Papers Vs. Fast Track Team reported in 2008 (2) KHC 44 (DB). In that case this Court held that if the Fast Track team is of the opinion that the returns filed by the assessee are untrue, incorrect and improper and therefore the returns are required to be rejected, then the fast track team was expected to issue pre-assessment notice before passing the best judgment assessment. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that in the case at hand the turnover returned by the petitioner was not rejected and hence non-issuance of pre-assessment notice has not vitiated the proceedings. According to the petitioner the claim based on Form-25 declarations were not fully considered while making the assessment. W.P.(C).25767/09 2 2. Yet another aspect pointed out is that the impugned orders of assessment are signed only by 3 members of the fast track team. It is mandatory as per provisions contained in Section 17D of the Act that the assessment can be made only by the team of 4 members under Section 17D of the Act. 3. Under the above circumstances I am of the opinion that the impugned assessments are liable to be set aside and the assessing authority need be directed to issue fresh assessment orders after issuing pre-assessment notice, and after compoying with the mandatory requirements of Section 17D. 4. In the result Exts.P1 and P2 are hereby quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to pass fresh orders in the matter after issuing a pre-assessment notice and after considering the objections of the petitioner. Fresh orders in this matter may be issued as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb