IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2008 / 15TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 29620 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SANTY AUGUSTINE, CHETTIYAMKUNNEL TRADERS, CHITTARIKKAL.P.O, NILESHWAR,KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.V.K.SHAMUSUDHEEN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. FAST TRACK SPECIAL TEAM, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, (AA), HOSDURG, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, HOSDURG, KASARGOD. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No.29620 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Ext.P4 is a notice issued issued under Section 43 of the KGST Act. According to the petitioner Section 43 is not at all attracted and it is issued without jurisdiction. He also submits that only an error apparent on the face of the record will suffice to attract jurisdiction under Section 43. In this connection he also relies on the decision of this court reported in M/s. Arts and Cine House v. State of Kerala (1994 KLJ (Tax Cases) 172) to the effect that a mistake rectifiable under Section 43 should be apparent on the face of the record and is not one which could be discovered by arguments. He points out that the documents relied on in Ext.P4 notice were already considered by the first respondent team. It is further contended that notice is not valid in view of the specific bar created under Clause (d) of Section 17D(2) of the KGST Act, which prohibits any kind of re-opening without the prior permission of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. Ext.P4 is issued without any such permission. 2. Heard learned Government Pleader also. He points out that this is only a notice. 3. I feel that, at this stage, it may not be necessary for this court to consider the question. The petitioner may file his objections, which is WPC.29620/2008. 2 taken up before this court, before the first respondent. If such objections are raised in reply to Ext.P4 notice, the second respondent will be duty bound to apply its mind to each and every objection and he will remind himself that he cannot over step the limits of the jurisdiction, which he has under Section 43, nor can he violate Clause (d) of Section 17D(2), if there is any such violation involved. When objections are filed by the petitioner, he cannot reduce the entire exercise to a mere formality. I am relegating the party back to the second respondent with the direction that the second respondent will consider each and every objection taken by the petitioner and merely because he has issued Ext.P4 notice, he cannot act in a mechanical manner without reference to the objections, which the party raised before him. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file his objections to Ext.P4 notice and directing the second respondent to consider all the objections keeping in mind the observations made by me in this judgment. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb