IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 16382 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S. BHARAT GEARS LIMITED, 34/1810 A, POOMKUDY HOUSE, NH 47 ROAD, EDAPPALLY, COCHIN-16, REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR. ANIL JOSE. BY ADV. SRI.K.J.ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE III, COMMERCIAL TAXES COMPLEX, ERNAKULAM COCHIN-682015. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 16382 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext.P4 order stated as passed by the Fast Track Team, which according to the petitioner is not in conformity with the relevant provisions of law and the law declared by this Court as per the decision in Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam & others [2009 (4) KHC 819]. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. Going by the materials on record, it is very much clear that Ext.P1 pre assessment notice has been signed by only one officer, which is not enough, if at all the assessment under Section 17 D is to be sustained. Similarly, in Ext.P4 assessment order, only three officers have subscribed their signature and against the name of the fourth officer, it is only stated as 'signed'. Yet another aspect to be noted is that, in Ext.P4 order, it is stated that, though pre assessment notice was sent to the party earlier, revised notice was necessitated to have issued; which however was returned unserved by the postal authority, with the endorsement 'left'. It was thereafter that the authority proceeded with further steps by passing Ext.P4 order, without ensuring that the 'revised notice' was actually served 2 WP(C) No. 16382/2010 to the party. 4. In the above circumstances, this Court finds it difficult to sustain Exts.P1 and P4. Accordingly, the said proceedings are set aside and the concerned authority is permitted to finalise the assessment afresh, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law and the dictum in the decision cited supra. The proceedings as above shall be finalized 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 accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc