High Court Kerala High Court

P.O.Paul vs Fast Tract Team on 6 April, 2010

Kerala High Court
P.O.Paul vs Fast Tract Team on 6 April, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 11958 of 2010(T)


1. P.O.PAUL, PROPRIETOR, RELIANCE DENTAL
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. FAST TRACT TEAM, DEPARTMENT OF
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SALES TAX OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY (SR.)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :06/04/2010

 O R D E R
                    P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
                   ---------------------------
                       W.P(C) No.11958 of 2010-T
                   ----------------------------
                 Dated this the 6th day of April, 2010.

                            J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is aggrieved of Exts.P1 to P3 assessment orders

in respect of the assessment years 2001-02 to 2003-04 under

Section 17D of the KGST Act. The basic contention is that,

finalization of the assessment as above is not in conformity with the

statutory requirements, more so, since Exts.P7 to P9 ‘pre-

assessment notices’ have been signed and issued only by one

particular officer, though the same is stated as issued by the Fast

Track Team. The learned counsel also submits that, the manner in

which the proceedings are to be finalized under Section 17D has

already been declared by this Court in Hindustan Petroleum

Corporation Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes,

Ernakulam & others 2009(4) KHC 819.

2. The learned Government Pleader also concedes that the

issuance of pre-assessment notice as well as the finalisation of the

assessment as above are not in conformity with the mandate given

W.P(C) No.11958 of 2010-T 2

by this Court and hence can’t have any valid existence in the eye of

law.

3. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings are set aside.

The first respondent/competent authority is directed to re-consider

the matter afresh and finalise the proceedings in accordance with

law, taking note of the observation made by this Court in the

decision cited supra. This shall be done at the earliest, at any rate,

within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE

//True Copy//

P.A to Judge

ab