IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14173 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.COLFAX LABORATORIES (I) LTD., 32/616, AVEES BUILDINGS, TOLL JUNCTION, EDAPPALLY, COCHIN-682 024, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER-LEGAL & CORPORATE SERVICE SRI.UMESHWAR PRASAD SINHA. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.NIVEDITA A.KAMATH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE-I, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE FAST TRACK TEAM, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (TAXES), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C)No. 14173 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 18th May , 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext. P4 assessment order and Ext. P5 notice finalised by the Fast Track Team under Section 17D of the KGST Act. The basic grievance projected in the Writ Petition is that the assessment completed by the Fast Track Team is not in conformity with the relevant provisions of law, in so far as pre-assessment notice has been issued only by a single officer as borne by Ext.P1, though the assessment order has been passed by the Fast Track Team consisting of four members . The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this is contrary to the dictum in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Asst. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam [2009(4) KHC 819]. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances and materials W.P.(C)No. 14173 OF 2010 2 on record , this Court finds that there is considerable force in the said submission. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings are set aside and the second respondent is directed to consider the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner , as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk