IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2010 / 25TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20625 of 2010(C) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M/S.CALCUTTA TARPAULIN CO., BAZAR ROAD, KOCHI-2. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PRAKASH GUPTA. BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON, SMT.MEERA V.MENON, SRI.MAHESH V.MENON. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 1ST CIRCLE, MATTANCHERRY. 2. FAST TRACK TEAM NO.V., DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERRY. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 20625 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext.P7 notice issued by the 1st respondent proposing to revise the assessment, already finalized by the 2nd respondent/Fast Track Team under Section 17 D of the KGST Act as borne by Ext.P2. The scope and applicability of provision and the manner in which it has to be finalized under Section 17D have been explained by this Court in decision reported in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam and others [2009 (4) KHC 819]. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, the proceedings having become final by virtue of Ext.P2 order passed by the 2nd respondent/Fast Track Team, there is absolutely no competence, jurisdiction or authority for the 1st respondent, who was only one of the four members of the Fast Track Team, to have issued Ext.P7 seeking to re-open the assessment made by the team, which hence is under challenge. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. Considering the materials on record, this Court finds considerable force in the submission made from the part of the petitioner, 2 WP(C) No. 20625/2010 obviously for the reason that Ext.P7 order issued by one of the officers of the Fast Track Team cannot override the scope and effect of Ext.P2 order. If at all Ext.P2 is to be varied in any manner, it could be done only by the 2nd respondent/Fast Track Team in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. In the said circumstance, Ext.P7 is set aside without expressing anything as to the merits; however making it clear that, this will not bar the way of 2nd respondent in taking further steps, if at all Ext.P2 is intended to be varied and if the same is permissible under the relevant provisions of law. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc