IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 5254 of 2010(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- GIGI SAJI, WIFE OF SAJI JOSEPH, AGED 35 YEARS, PROPRIETRIX, M/S.MARIA METALS, RESIDING AT ANJIPARAMBIL, K.P.VALLON ROAD,KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-20. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SRI.LEO GEORGE SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR SRI.K.N.SASIDHARAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER(ASSESSMENT), COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE I, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 015. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVIJNDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 5254 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 23rd February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The challenge is against Exts.P6 and P7 assessment orders passed under Section 17D of the K.G.S.T. Act. Many a ground has been raised by the petitioner, both legal as well as factual, in support of the contentions. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings finalised by the respondents are not in conformity with the statutory requirements and also the mandate given by this Court by virtue of binding judicial precedents. 2. The learned Government Pleader very fairly concedes that the specific observations made by this Court as per the decision reported in 2009(4) KHC 819 (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Asst. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam) do not stand fulfilled as per the proceedings finalised and that the matter could be caused to be re-considered W.P.(C) No. 5254 OF 2010 2 in tune with the specific statutory prescriptions and also in the light of the observations made by this Court in the decision cited supra. 3. In the said circumstances, Exts.P6 and P7 (impugned proceedings) are set aside and the concerned authority/second respondent is directed to re-consider the matter, issuing proper notice to the petitioner and finalise the proceedings in accordance with law, taking note of the specific observation made by this Court as to the way in which proceedings are to be finalised as per the decision cited supra. The proceedings shall be finalised as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk