IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 27473 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.M.MUMTHAZ (FORMER MANAGING PARTNER OF M/S. MALABAR GARMENTS EXPORTS ) SBI COLONY, RAMANATHAPURAM, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.V.K.SHAMUSUDHEEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER IIND CIRCLE, PALAKKAD. 2. TAHSILDAR (RR) PALAKKAD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV.SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 27473 OF 2008 U ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 6th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Exts.P7 and P8 orders of assessment passed under the KGST Act. A perusal of the same would show that though pre-assessment notice is issued, apart from Form-50 which was issued earlier both were returned unserved and the assessments were completed. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for petitioner points out that the notice came to be issued in the office address but the factory has been closed. It is pointed out that the notice could have been affected to the residential address of the petitioner. It is stated that the factory was originally functioning where the petitioner was residing. Subsequently, it was shifted to the place where the notice sought to be served. The petitioner has ceased his partnership in 2006 and there was a reconstitution. It is further pointed out that in the facts of this case, the petitioner is actually entitled to the benefit of exemption and the exemption was given WPC.27473/08 : 2 : due to the credit and the credit has been given in 2003 and there is no liability for both years. 3. Learned Government Pleader points out that the address sought to be served was the address given by the petitioner. Service can be affected under Rule 63 in the methods which are enumerated under clauses (a) to (d) as held by this court. Notice can be affixed only if service by methods under clauses (a) to (c) are attempted. Whatever that be, having regard to the totality of facts, I would think that this is a case where the assessments are to be redone. I feel that notice should have been served on the petitioner and assessments have to be completed with opportunity to the petitioner. Accordingly, Exts.P7 and P8 are quashed and the 1st respondent will complete the assessment in accordance with law within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks