IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31720 of 2008(A)
1. ELDHOSE KURIAKKOSE, RAILWAY CONTRACTOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.FIROZ
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :20/01/2009
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.C. NO. 31720 OF 2008 A
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th January, 2009
JUDGMENT
Petitioner challenges Ext.P1 assessment order and Ext.P2
demand notice. By Ext.P1, petitioner is assessed purportedly by
the Fast Track Team under Section 17D of the KGST Act.
Ext.P2 is the demand notice.
2. I heard Dr. K.B. Mohammed Kutty, learned senior
counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned
Government Pleader. The main contention is based on Ext.P4
Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court as per which pre-
assessment notice is to be given. In the Counter Affidavit, it is
not disputed that pre-assessment notice was not issued and also
it is stated that since the assessment was completed by the Fast
Track Team, the rate of tax is 5.6 per cent which was correctly
applied and it was brought to the notice of the Authorised
Representative and the assessment was completed without
issuing pre-assessment notice. A Reply Affidavit is filed,
WPC.31720/08 A 2
wherein, it is stated, inter alia, as follows:
“The Statement in the Counter Affidavit that
the higher rate of tax brought to the notice of my
authorised representative is incorrect. There was
no such instance. My authorised representative
has not given any return statement accepting the
rate of tax at 5.6%. He submitted that the
statement in the Counter Affidavit is therefore
clearly incorrect. I have serious objection to levy
tax at the rate of 5.6% instead of the correct rate of
2.2%.”
3. In the light of the pleadings, I would think that having
regard to the Judgment of this Court and also the dictate of the
Circular, the petitioner should have been issued a pre-
assessment notice. It is to be noticed that in Circular No.17/07,
Clause 20 reads as follows:
“Even though the assessment order shall
have to be signed by all members of the team, the
pre-assessment notices approved by the team need
not be signed by all team members, and can be
signed by any member on behalf of the team.”
WPC.31720/08 A 3
4. Learned Government Pleader fairly submits that Ext.P1
order is signed only by one person. This is a clear violation of
the Circular. In the light of these circumstances, the Writ
Petition is only to be allowed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is
allowed and Exts.P1 and P2 are quashed. The matter will be re-
done in accordance with law within two months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
Sd/=
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE
kbk.
// True Copy //
PS to Judge