IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2010 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10887 of 2010(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MR.JOY THOMAS,PROPRIETOR,M/S.THOMSON PHARMACEUTICALS,DOOR NO.231,MANJAMKUZHIYIL BUILDINGS,KOLENCHERY P.O,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.TOMSON T.EMMANUEL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,COMMERCIAL TAXES, IIND CIRCLE,PERUMBAVOOR. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, FAST TRACK TEAM NO.X,MATTANCHERY. 3. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,FAST TRACK TEAM NO.IX,MATTANCHERY. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 10887 of 2010-I ---------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the Exts.P6 and P7 assessment orders passed under Section 17D of the KGST Act in respect of the assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04. Many a ground has been raised, stating that the assessment finalized by the concerned respondent is not in conformity with the statutory requirements. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Exts.P4 and P5 'pre-assessment notices' have been issued by the second respondent with the signature of the particular officer and 'not by the team' consisting of four members, which is a pre- requisite to sustain the action. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits with reference to the materials on record, that the pre- assessment notices were issued on 7.11.2008, which was served on the petitioner as early as on 18.11.2008 and that the petitioner did not turn up with any statement of objection. It was in the said circumstance, that the assessments were finalized as per Exts.P6 and P7 on 27.10.2009. However, the fact remains that the petitioner is very much at liberty to challenge the same by filing the W.P(C) No. 10887 of 2010-I 2 petition to condone the delay, if satisfactory explanation is offered in respect of the lapse. 4. With regard to the merits involved, it is very much evident that the manner in which the assessment under Section 17D of the Act has to be finalised is no more open to challenge, in view of the declaration of law by this Court as per the decision in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam & others 2009(4) KHC 819 . Obviously, the materials on record clearly reveal that the Exts.P4 and P5 'pre-assessment notices' are not in conformity with the statutory requirements and the law declared by this Court and as such, can't lead to adverse consequences, as far as the petitioner is concerned. 5. In the said circumstances, Exts.P4 to P7 are set aside and the second respondent/competent authority is directed to reconsider and finalise the matter, in accordance with law. This shall be done 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 disposed of. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// ab P.A to Judge