IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1035 of 2010(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. ABDUL KABEER, S/O.LATE MOHAMMED, AGED 37 YEARS, CHEMMANKADAVU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, FORMERLY PARTNER OF M/S.ELECTRIC PROJECT CONSULTANTS, MAKKARAPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM. 2. M/S.ELECTRICAL PROJECT CONSULTANTS, MAKKARAPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM, REP. BY ITS PRESENT MANAGING PARTNER P.HAMSA, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI, AGED 40 YEARS, PATITHY KUTHU HOUSE, KOOTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. FAST TRACK TEAM NO.III, FAST TRACK ADALATH, MALAPPURAM, REP. BY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER(KVAT), COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER(WC & LT), COMMERCIAL TAXES, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY, TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, TALUK OFFICE, PERUNTHALMANNA. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.CK.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 1035 of 2010 ---------------------------------- Dated, this the 13th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Exts.P1 and P2 assessment orders passed by the first respondent under Section 17 D of the KGST Act, on many a ground. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the matter is covered by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court as per judgment dated 08.10.2009 in Writ Appeal No.1714/2009. The learned Government Pleader fairly conceded that the position in this regard, as projected in the Writ Petition is correct and that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the Assessing Authority. 3. In the above facts and circumstances, the impugned orders Exts.P1 and P2 are set aside and the first respondent is directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the dictum in the decision cited supra, of course after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which exercise shall be finalized, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Since the impugned orders are set aside, it is made clear that no recovery proceedings are liable to be proceeded against the petitioner for the time being. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc