IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2009 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15358 of 2009(L) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- RAJKUMAR KEJRIWAL, INDO EAST CORPORATION, 17,TARACHAND DUTTA STREET, OPPOSITE KRISHNA CINEMA, KOLKATA 700 073. BY ADVS. MR.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, SMT.K.HYMAVATHY. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. FAST TRACK TEAM NO.II, REPRESENTED BY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WC & LT) OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO TAXES DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No.15358 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 16th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioner is that, the assessments finalized by the first respondent under the KGST Act, in respect of the assessment years 2002-'03 and 2003-'04 are not in conformity with the Statute and Ext.P8 judgment, where it is specifically stipulated that the Fast Track Assessment shall be made by a team consisting of 4 members and that it shall bear the signature of all the members. The petitioner has also challenged the Constitutional validity of Subsection 5 of Section 17 D of the KGST Act. 2. The challenge raised by the petitioner against the constitutional validity of Subsection 5 of the Section 17 D of the KGST Act has already been answered in favour of the department as per the decision rendered by this Court in Vianni Papers Vs Fast Track Team (2008 (2) KLT 511.) 3. The impugned orders, though stated as passed by 4 members, contain signature of only 3 persons. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submits that the original file contains the signature of all the 4 members and that the decision was taken by all the 4 members unanimously, which appears to be a mystery. This Court does not intend to express any opinion on the statement/explanation made on behalf of the respondents. WP (C) No. 15358 of 2009 : 2 : 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, Ext.P5 and Ext.P6 impugned in the present Writ Petition are set aside and the first respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is also made clear that, till such orders are passed, all further coercive steps, if any, pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd