IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 13165 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S. ASIAN GRANITO INDIA LTD., KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY RAJESH VASHRAM PATEL, MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. ASST. COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE-III, ERNAKULAM. 2. FAST TRACK TEAM, DEPARTMENT COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDDIN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 13165 of 2010(U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT NOTICE DTD.11.12.2009 EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE DATED 19.12.2009 EXT.P3: COPY OF TE CERTIFICATE DATED 19.12.2009 EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.12.2009 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P. A TO JUDGE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.13165 of 2010-U ---------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext.P5 order passed by the second respondent/Fast Track Team under Section 17D of the KGST Act. 2. The case projected by the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that Ext.P1 pre-assessment notice has been issued only by one officer, which hence is not in conformity with the statutory requirements; and as the natural consequence, Ext.P4 order passed by the Fast Track Team has no legal footing. Reliance is also placed on the decision of this Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam & others 2009(4) KHC 819. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. Going by the facts and figures borne out from the records, it is very much evident that the contentions raised by the petitioner with reference to Exts.P1 and P4 that they are not in conformity with the statutory requirements and the mandate given W.P(C) No.13165 of 2010-U 2 by this Court as per the decision cited supra appears to be correct and sustainable. 5. In the above circumstances, Exts.P1 and P4 cannot have any valid existence and accordingly, they are set aside. This However, will not prejudice the right of the second respondent or such other authority as the case may be, to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law, by taking appropriate proceedings, which shall be finalised, 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 W.P(C) No.13165 of 2010-U 3