IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2011 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 9729 of 2011(M) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M/S. AISWARYA MARINE PVT. LTD., WORKS CONTRACT, MULAVUKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR K.A.JOSEPH. BY ADVS. SMT.S.K.DEVI, SRI.M.RAJ MOHAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE FAST TRACK TEAM, DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM-682 015. REPRESENTED BY ASST. COMMISSIONER (WORKS CONTRACT) DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM-682 015. 2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER (WORKS CONTRACT) DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM-682 015. 3. THE INSPECTION ASST. COMMISSIONER, DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM-682 030. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.9729 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of April, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Petitioner is challenging Ext.P1 order of assessment finalised against them, under the procedure contemplated in Section 17D of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (KGST Act). Contention of the petitioner is that the assessment was completed without complying with the mandatory procedure, by the 1st respondent, the Fast Track Team. It is the specific contention that no proposal notice with respect to the assessment was issued by the 1st respondent and on the other hand the proposal notice was issued only by the 2nd respondent. It is further contended that, before finalising the assessment by the Fast Track Team, the petitioner was not given any opportunity to produce Books of Accounts or to file objections against the proposal. Further contention is that, no hearing was afforded before finalising the assessment. 2. It is settled law by this time that Section 17D provides a comprehensive procedure for finalisation of pending assessments. It is a self-contained code prescribing procedure to be followed by the Fast Track Team. It is categorically held by this court in the decision in Hindustan Petroleum W.P.(C).9729/11 -2- Corporation Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam & Others (2009 (4) KHC 819) that any non-compliance of the mandatory procedure by the Fast Track Team will vitiate the assessment. 3. Going by the documents produced, it is evident that, the Fast Track Team has not issued any notice proposing the assessment, nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. Hence I am of the view that Ext.P1 order is unsustainable in the eye of law. 4. The writ petition is allowed and Ext.P1 order is hereby quashed. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to finalise the assessment afresh, either under Section 17(3) or under Section 17D, after due compliance of all formalities prescribed and after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to raise objections against the proposal and also opportunity of personal hearing. 5. Fresh assessment in this regard shall be completed as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb