IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2010 / 29TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30561 of 2010(U) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M.RAMAKRISHNAN,PROPRIETOR, M/S.SREEPRIYA AGENCIES,ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SMT.S.K.DEVI, SRI.M.A.ALEX MARTIN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE FAST TRACK TEAM,DEPT.OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,ERNAKULAM,REPRESENTED BY ASST.COMMISSIONER (ASSMT),SPL.CIRCLE-1, ERNAKULAM,COCHIN-12. 2. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER(ASSMT), DEPT.OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPL.CIRCLE-1, ERNAKULAM,COCHIN-12. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-30. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 30561 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 21st day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Exts.P1 and P2 orders issued by the 1st respondent, finalizing assessments under the KGST Act, with respect to the years 2003-'04 and 2004-'05, are under challenge in this writ petition. 2. It is contended by the petitioner that before finalizing the assessments, no proper notice was issued, intimating the proposal. Further contention is that the petitioner was not afforded with an opportunity for production of books of accounts and no hearing was conducted by the 1st respondent with proper publication of notice, as required under section 17D. 3. In a decision of this Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. V. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam & others (2009 (4) KHC 819) this Court had categorically held that strict compliance of all formalities jointly by the members of the Fast Track Team is mandatory and any laches on this aspect would vitiate the assessment. Requirement regarding issuance of proposal notice by all the members of the W.P.(C) No. 30561/2010 2 team as well as publication of notice with respect to the hearing are emphasized as mandatory requirements to be complied with in the matter of finalization of assessment under section 17D. 4. In the case at hand it is noticed that on receipt of the proposal, the petitioner had submitted detailed objection and such objection was considered by the 1st respondent. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner could not successfully contend that there was lack of notice regarding proposal for finalizing the assessment, issued by the 1st respondent. However, it is noticed that the petitioner has not given proper opportunity to produce books of accounts and an opportunity of hearing was not afforded. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner produced a copy of the notice issued by the 2nd respondent calling for production of books of accounts. It is noticed that the Fast Track Team has not issued any such notice. It is contended by the petitioner that the books of accounts were produced before the 2nd respondent and those were not considered before finalizing the assessment. It is also noticed that there was no proper notification regarding the W.P.(C) No. 30561/2010 3 hearing conducted by the 1st respondent and petitioner was not afforded with an adequate opportunity of hearing before finalizing the matter. 6. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and Exts.P1 and P2 orders are hereby quashed. Fresh assessments are directed to be finalized either by the 1st respondent under section 17D or by the 2nd respondent under section 17(3), after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also an opportunity to produce books of accounts and other documents to substantiate his claim. 7. Fresh orders of assessments in this regard shall be finalized at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 8. Needless to say that recovery steps now initiated shall not be pursued, till fresh orders are passed as directed above. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.