IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2010 / 28TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 31507 of 2010(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- T.C. PREM KUMAR, 6/13/09, JAVULIKADAI BAZAR, USLIAMPATTI, MADURAI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU, PIN-625 532. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHAKARA MENON RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695 001. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 101. 3. FAST TRACK TEAM NO.2, COMMERCIAL TAXES, COMMERCIAL TAX COMPLEX, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 001. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 31507 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 20th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Ext.P2 is an order of assessment issued under section 17D of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (KGST Act). The said order is challenged, without resorting to the statutory remedy of appeal on the ground that the order under challenge is not legally sustainable. It is pointed out that the order in question was signed only by three members of the 'Fast Track Team'. It is further contended that there was no proper notice issued before finalizing the assessment. Pointing out to the contents of Ext.P2, it is submitted that the proposal notice was returned without service with postal endorsement as “left without intimation”. It is also contended that there was no publication regarding the hearing conducted by the 'Fast Track Team'. 2. The issue involved now stands covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. V. Assistant Commissioner, 2 Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam & others (2009 (4) KHC 819). In the said decision it is held that strict compliance of all formalities jointly by the members of the Fast Track Team is mandatory and any laches on this aspect will vitiate the assessment. Taking note of the dictum laid down in the decision cited supra, I am of the view that Ext.P2 order is unsustainable in the eye of law. 3. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P2 order is hereby quashed. Respondents 2 and 3 are at liberty to finalize the assessment afresh, after issuing proper notice to the petitioner and after complying with the mandatory procedures stipulated in the relevant provisions, taking note of the directions contained in the decision cited above. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.