IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 12260 of 2010(F)
1. M/S. CREATIVE CONCEPTS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
3. THE FAST TRACK TEAM-I,
4. THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
5. THE INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER,
For Petitioner :SMT.K.LATHA
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :25/06/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
--------------------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 12260 OF 2010
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of June, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is challenging the correctness and justifiability of
Ext.P1 and P1(a) orders passed by the 3rd respondent/Fast Track Team
under Section 17 D of the KGST Act. The basic dispute projected in this
Writ Petition is that, absolutely no notice whatsoever was issued or served
to the petitioner as referred to in the impugned order, giving the petitioner
time to produce the documents till 23.02.2010 and that the assessment
proceedings have been finalised without issuing any such notice, which
hence is sought to be intercepted by this Court.
2. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court
on 21.06.2010, the learned Government Pleader was required to ascertain
whether the notice dated 17.02.2010 as referred in Ext.P1/P1(a) was
actually served to the petitioner and also to make available the proof in
this regard, as to the service of notice. The learned Government Pleader
submits on instructions that, the above notice was sent only by ‘ordinary
post’ and that there is no material to show that the same was actually
served upon the petitioner.
3. In the above circumstance, this Court finds considerable force
in the submission made from the part of the petitioner, that no such notice
2
WP(C) No. 12260/2010
was actually served to the petitioner, requiring to produce the relevant
documents. This being the position, this Court finds it fit and proper to give
one more opportunity to have the documents produced; especially in view
of the scheme of the statutory prescription under Section 17 D and further
course of challenge by way of approaching the Tribunal.
4. In the said circumstance, Ext.P1/P1(a) orders are hereby set
aside and the 3rd respondent/such other authority,as the case may be, is
directed to consider the matter afresh, giving an effective opportunity to the
petitioner to produce the relevant documents by sending a notice by
‘registered post’ in this regard. The proceedings as above shall be
completed in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any
rate, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
dnc