IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2010 / 9TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20372 of 2010(V) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SUJATHA SRINIVASAN, PROPRIETRIX, ANJALI REXIN CENTRE, THIRUR, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHAKARA MENON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. FAST TRACK TEAM-11, (ASSESSMENT) COMMERCIAL TAXES, MALAPPURAM-676 505. 3. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAX, TIRUR-676 101. 4. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, MALAPURAM AT MANJERI-676 121. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.V.K. SHAMSUDEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.20372 of 2010-V ---------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of Ext.P1 and P2 assessment orders passed under Section 17D of the KGST Act, in respect of the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner, being aggrieved of the assessment orders, had already approached the Tribunal by filing appeals which however have been rejected, as borne by Ext.P4 order, stating that the tax liability has not been cleared as prescribed under Section 17D of the Act. The learned counsel further submits that the commodity actually stands exempted from the purview of the taxation and that the petitioner has preferred Exts.P8(a) and P8(b) applications for rectification before the third respondent and that the applications are still pending. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has cleared a sum of Rs.1.4 lakhs in connection with the liability in question and that the proceedings are liable to be intercepted, particularly in view of the manner in which the proceedings are finalised under Section 17D of the Act. W.P(C) No.20372 of 2010-V 2 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. It is revealed that Exts.P1 and P2 orders though passed by the second respondent Fast Track Team, have been signed by only one of the members; which obviously is not in tune with the scheme of the statute and the law declared by this Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam & others 2009(4) KHC 819. This being the position, this Court does not find it necessary to relegate the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy, since the impugned orders (Exts.P1 and P2) do not have any valid existence in the eye of law. Accordingly, they are set aside. The competent authority is directed to re-consider the matter, strictly in conformity with the provisions of law and the observations made in the decision cited supra. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab