IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2009 / 82TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21862 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.K.PRATHAPAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.PARAYIL DISTRIBUTORS AND EXPORTERS (INDIA)(P) LTD., CHENTHRAPPINNI, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, VAT CIRCLE, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE FAST TRACK ASSESSMENT TEAM, TEAM NO.VI, THRISSUR, OFFICE OF THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), TRICHUR-20. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, CHIYARAM, THRISSUR DIST BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 21862 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 3rd day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT The case of the petitioner is that, quite a lot of mistakes has been committed by the second respondent Fast Track Team, while passing the assessment order, in respect of the assessment year 2002 - '03 as evident from Ext.P3. Met with the said circumstances, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 petition for rectification and it is without any regard to the pendency of the said proceedings that the respondents are proceeding with the coercive steps as borne by Exts. P4 and P6, which is sought to be intercepted in the present Writ Petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, on earlier occasions, similar course was pursued by the second respondent and in the said circumstances, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing WPC 6093 of 2009, which led to Ext.P1 judgment. As per Ext.P1, this Court permitted the petitioner to file necessary application for rectification; observing that, it was for the concerned officer to verify the orders with reference to the records and carry out the rectification to the extent required. It was also made clear that, if the Fast Track Team was not available, the matter had to be looked into by the Assessing Officer in charge. The learned counsel further submits that, pursuant to Ext.P1, the application preferred for rectification was favorably WP (C) No. 21862 of 2009 : 2 : considered, whereby Exts.P2, P2(a) and P2(b) rectified assessment orders were passed in respect of the relevant years. This being the position, the respondents 1 and 2 are bound to follow similar course in respect of the assessment year 2002 - '03 as well, submits the learned counsel. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, the respondent 1 and 2 are directed to cause Ext.P4 application for rectification to be considered and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, of course after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This however shall be finalized at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd