IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2010 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9649 of 2010(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER ---------------- M/S.KAIRALI APPARELS, TEAK-KNIT INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, KANJIKODE WEST, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER P.M.MUMTHAS. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.T.G.ABHILASH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. FAST TRACK TEAM NO.III, REPRESENTED BY SALES TAX OFFICER, IIND CIRCLE,PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 9649 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 23rd March , 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Exts.P1 and P2 assessment orders, completed under Section 17D of the KGST Act. Many a ground has been raised in the Writ Petition, particularly as to the course and procedure pursued by the respondents while finalising the assessment. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the assessment completed by the respondent is not in conformity with the statutory requirements and also the law declared by this Court as per the decision reported in 2009(4) KHC 819 (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Asst. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam). 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well . 4. Going by the materials on record and also taking note of the specific contention raised from the part of the petitioner W.P.(C) No. 9649 OF 2010 2 that there was no pre-assessment notice at all , this Court does not require a second thought to arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are bad in law. 5. Accordingly, Exts. P1 and P2 assessment orders are hereby set aside and the first respondent/concerned authority (as the case may be) is directed to finalise the assessments in accordance with law, in conformity with the statutory requirements, in the manner as explained by this Court vide decision cited supra, of course after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The proceedings shall be finalised 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