IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10626 of 2010(C) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- BALU YEDUKONDALU ALIAS B.BHASKAR PROPRIETOR M/S.SAIRAM & CO., NOW RESIDING AT NO.563-B, KRISHNA PATNAM VILLAGE, VIA-MUTHUKAR MANDALAM, NELLORE DISTRICT, ANDRA PRADESH. BY DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. MR.K.M.FIROZ. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE FAST TRACK TEAM NO.II, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPSECIAL CIRLE-III, COMMERCIAL TAXES COMPLEX, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 015. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE-III, COMMERCIAL TAXES COMPLEX, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 015. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C).No.10626 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext.P1 assessing final proceedings under Section 17(D) of the KGST Act, contending that it is not in conformity with the statutory requirements. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. The manner in which the assessment proceedings are to be finalised under Section 17(D) can no more be a matter of dispute, in view of the authoritative pronouncement of law by the Division Bench of this Court vide the judgment in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam & ors (2009 (4) KHC 819). The learned Government Pleader also fairly concedes to the position brought to light from the part W.P.(C).No.10626 of 2010 2 of the petitioner with regard to the course of events pursued by the 1st respondent. 4. Considering the materials on record, this Court finds that Ext.P1 order passed by the 1st respondent cannot stand the test of law and accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. The 1st respondent/such other competent authority, is directed to reconsider the matter, and finalise the assessment, strictly in conformity with the statutory requirements as explained by this Court, in the decision cited supra, of course, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and this shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE nl