IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2009 / 28TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22392 of 2009(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PEST CONTROL (INDIA) PVT. LTD., 39/2541, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, MR.NINAN KOSHY. BY ADV. SRI.K.SRIKUMAR SRI. K.J.CHERRY BABU SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN SRI.P.R.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, SALES TAX COMPLEX, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM. 3. FAST TRACK TEAM, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS), ERNAKULAM. 5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE-I, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM. 6. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.VINOD CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 22392 OF 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved of Ext.P10 and P11 assessment orders passed by the authorities, simultaneously invoking the provisions under Section 17(D) as well as 17(3). The case put forth by the petitioner in the Writ Petition is that, the assessment could only be under Section 17(3) and though the actual facts and figures including the relevant provisions of law have very well been projected in Ext.P13 and P14 appeals, because of the assessment stated as under Section 17(D), requisite amount contemplated under Section 17(D) (5) is being insisted to be paid and the proceedings have been noted as defective. 2. Heard the Special Government Pleader (Taxes) as well, who concedes the factual position as revealed from the impugned orders that the proceedings have been finalized by the authorities, simultaneously under Section 17(D) and under section 17(3) pointing out that the authority could not have simultaneously invoked both the provisions. However, with regard to the case put forth from the part of the petitioner that the assessment had to be completed under Section 17(3), it is stated as not WPC NO.22392/2009 2 correct or sustainable, contending that, it is for the assessing authority to consider and decide whether it should be under Section 17(D) or under Section 17(3). 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, the impugned orders Ext.P10 and P11 passed by the 3rd respondent simultaneously under Section 17(D) and under Section 17(3) are hereby held as not correct or sustainable and are set aside. The matter is remitted to the 3rd respondent, to consider the same afresh, as to whether the matter should be finalized invoking the provision under Section 17(D) or under Section 17(3). The proceedings shall be finalized after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 4. Since the impugned orders are set aside, it is also made clear that, all further proceedings of recovery of the amount allegedly due from the petitioner, shall be kept in abeyance, till such final orders are passed afresh, as aforesaid. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc