IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 11958 of 2010(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.O.PAUL, PROPRIETOR, RELIANCE DENTAL LABORATORY, KOTTENLLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADVS.SRI.K.M.FIROZ, SMT.M.SHAJNA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. FAST TRACT TEAM, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, IRINJALAKUDA REPRESENTED BY THE SALES TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES,IRINJALAKUDA. 2. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES,IRINJALAKUDA. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. V.K. SHAMSUDDEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.11958 of 2010-T ---------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved of Exts.P1 to P3 assessment orders in respect of the assessment years 2001-02 to 2003-04 under Section 17D of the KGST Act. The basic contention is that, finalization of the assessment as above is not in conformity with the statutory requirements, more so, since Exts.P7 to P9 'pre- assessment notices' have been signed and issued only by one particular officer, though the same is stated as issued by the Fast Track Team. The learned counsel also submits that, the manner in which the proceedings are to be finalized under Section 17D has already been declared by this Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam & others 2009(4) KHC 819. 2. The learned Government Pleader also concedes that the issuance of pre-assessment notice as well as the finalisation of the assessment as above are not in conformity with the mandate given W.P(C) No.11958 of 2010-T 2 by this Court and hence can't have any valid existence in the eye of law. 3. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings are set aside. The first respondent/competent authority is directed to re-consider the matter afresh and finalise the proceedings in accordance with law, taking note of the observation made by this Court in the decision cited supra. This shall be done at the earliest, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab