IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2010 / 8TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1786 of 2010(W) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- ST.MARY'S TRADERS, P.O.THAIKKATTUSSERY, REP. BY PROPRIETOR, SRI.JOHN V.AKKARA, S/O.A.A.VARAPPAN, AKKARA HOUSE, THAIKKATTUSSERY, OLLUR. BY ADVS. MR.SHEEJO CHACKO, MR.A.G.UNNIKRISHNAN, MR.DEVAN K.MENON. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, IRINJALAKUDA. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, FAST TRACK NO.III, CIRCLE-II, THRISSUR-680 003. 3. COMMISSIONR OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, TRIVANDRUM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ----------------------------- W.P(C) No. 1786 of 2010-W ------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved of the assessment proceedings finalised by the second respondent/Fast Track Team, under Section 17(D) of the K.G.S.T Act. The grievance projected by the petitioner is that Ext.P3 pre assessment notice has been made an empty formality and the petitioner has been virtually denied of any effective opportunity to project the grievance with regard to the actual facts and figures, though reference has been made in Ext.P4 order as to the appearance made by the petitioner and the objections filed in this regard. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that Ext.P3 pre-assessment notice was issued on 23.7.2009, asking the petitioner to appear before the concerned respondent on 3.8.2009. It is also asserted by the learned counsel, with specific reference to the observation made by the second respondent/Fast Track Team in Ext.P4 order that the W.P(C) No. 1786 of 2010-W 2 said notice was served to the assessee only on '26.9.2009' and that the assessee appeared and filed his objections on '7.10.2009'. However, the order itself was passed on a prior date ie. on '29.9.2009'; though reference is made to the objections stated as filed by the petitioner on 7.10.2009. In short, the dates and figures given by the second respondent/Fast Track Team do not reconcile with each other and this Court does not require any second thought to hold that the impugned proceedings are wrong and illegal. Accordingly, Ext.P4 is set aside and the second respondent is directed to consider the matter afresh, of course after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in the light of the dictum in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam & others (2009(4) KHC 819). This exercise shall be pursued and 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 allowed. No cost. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// ab P.A to Judge