IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2009 / 6TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 25132 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MESSRS.M.S.& S MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, PALARIVATTOM,KOCHI,REP.BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. BY ADV. MR. A.KUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., TAXES DEPARTMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE FAST TRACK TEAM, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT,ERNAKULAM. 3. ASST.COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,SPECIAL CIRCLE III, COMMERCIAL TAX COMPLEX,ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 25132 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 28th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Ext.P10 order passed by the Fast Track Team/second respondent invoking the relevant provisions under Section 17 D, despite the fact that Ext.P5 notice was issued without any reference to the proceedings intended to be pursued under Section 17 D. That apart, the officer who issued Ext.P5 is not a party to Ext.P10 proceedings issued by the second respondent. Above all, it is also evident from Ext.P10, particularly at page 3 of the said order that, the petition submitted by the petitioner was considered only by one of the members of the Team, who has observed as follows: “ I have verified all contentions in detail.............................” “ I have gone through the reply and arguments of the assessee.................................” 2. Obviously, Ext.P10 order has been passed by one of the members of the Team, though it has been counter signed by the members. Sub Sections 2 (b) and 3 of Section 17 D specifically stipulate that an order under Section 17 D has to be passed by the Team consisting of 'four' members and that it should be a unanimous decision, under the signature of all the four members of the team. 3. It is very much evident from Ext.P10 order that, while passing the impugned order, only 'one' of the 4 members considered the matter, WP (C) No. 25132 of 2009 : 2 : which is contrary to the statute and on this score alone, Ext.P10 order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this Court sets aside the said order and the second respondent is directed to consider the matter afresh, of course after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, since the impugned order itself has been set aside, all further coercive proceedings, stated as being pursued against the petitioner, shall be kept in abeyance for the time being. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd