IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH MAGHA 1929 W.P.(C) No. 243 of 2008 (D) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- VIANI PAPERS, COCHIN-18, A TRADER REGISTERED UNDER THE SALES TAX ACT REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, FR.JAMES PERAPODAN BY ADV. SRI. S.VIJAYAN NAYAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. FAST TRACK TEAM, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KALAMASSERY, REPRESENTED BY SALES TAX OFFICER, I CIRCLE, KALAMASSERY. 2. THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT SECRETARY. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2008, THE COURT ON 31/01/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 243 OF 2008 D = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 31st January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. Exts. P1(a), P1(b) and P1(c) are the returns of the petitioner for the assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05. With effect from 1.4.2007, Fast Track method of Assessment was introduced in the Kerala General Sales Tax Act by virtue of Section 17D incorporated therein. In terms of the said provision, assessment for the aforesaid years was completed under Section 17D of the Act and Exts. P2(a), P2(b) and P2(c) are the copies of the assessment orders. Petitioner filed appeals against the aforesaid assessment orders and Exts. P3(a), P3(b) and P3(c) are the appeals that are filed before the 2nd respondent. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that the petitioner has not paid the disputed tax levied as per the assessment orders. The Tribunal has not registered the appeals and W.P.(C) No. 243 OF 2008 -2- it is in this background the writ petition has been filed praying for quashing the assessment orders or in the alternative to direct the 2nd respondent to register the appeals. 2. According to the petitioner, the requirement of payment of the entire tax amount as provided for in Section 17D(5) is only in relation to ex parte assessment orders. According to the petitioner, since the assessment orders in question are not ex parte orders, the payment of tax amount is not a requirement of law. For this purpose, petitioner is referring to paragraph 143 clause (iii) of the Budget Speech, 2007 where it is stated that any appeal against the ex parte orders of assessment under the Fast Track Method, will be maintainable only on payment of full tax assessed in such assessment. 3. Having heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Govt. Pleader, I should confess my inability to accept the contentions raised by the petitioner. Section 17D(5) provides as follows: “Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, appeals against the assessment orders issued under fast track method shall lie within forty five days to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and no such appeal shall lie unless the dealer has paid the W.P.(C) No. 243 OF 2008 -3- entire tax amount.” From a plain reading of this section it is obvious that an appeal, be it against an ex parte order of assessment or not, shall be filed within forty five days to the 2nd respondent Tribunal and no such appeal shall lie unless the dealer has paid the entire tax amount. The words of the statute do not admit of any ambiguity and it does not make any distinction in so far as the ex party orders of assessment are concerned. Therefore, I am of the firm view that any appeal arising out of an assessment under Section 17D can be maintained only on payment of the entire tax amount. 4. It is true that the petitioner has placed reliance on the Budget Speech, 2007. A reading of the extracted portion, does not lead to the inference that the requirement of Section 17D(5) is only in so far as ex parte orders of assessment are concerned. Even otherwise, in view of the clear statutory provision, I do not think that the Court should be guided by the Budget Speech. The provisions of the Circular No. 17/07 dated 12.4.2007 also does not support the case canvassed by the petitioner. 5. In this case, petitioner themselves admit in paragraph 5 of W.P.(C) No. 243 OF 2008 -4- the writ petition that they have not paid the disputed tax estimated by the Fast Track Team. If that be so, the requirement of Section 17D(5) remains unsatisfied and the Tribunal is justified in declining to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner. The writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-