IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 805 of 2009(U)
1. B.M.ABOOBACKER
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, TALIPARAMBA
... Respondent
2. KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
3. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.)
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :23/03/2009
O R D E R
K.M. JOSEPH, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 805 OF 2009 U
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner challenges Exts.P3 and P5. A direction is
sought to the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on
Ext.P9 after hearing the petitioner. Ext.P3 is an order of
assessment under section 17(3) of the KGST Act. The petitioner
preferred Ext.P4 appeal. Petitioner also applied for exemption
from payment of tax which was rejected by Ext.P5 order. In
Ext.P3, it is stated as follows:
” The pre-assessment notice under
section 17(3) of KGST read with section 17(D)
was duly served upon the assessee calling
objection if any and hearing. In response to the
notice the assessee requested one week time to
give reply to the notice and granted five days
time to file the reply. But the assessee did not
turn up.”
2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has indeed
filed objection. Learned Government Pleader, after verifying the
file, would categorically submit that it is correct that the petitioner
WPC.805/09
: 2 :
had filed objection. Therefore, this is a case where even though
the petitioner had filed objection, the assessment is completed as
the petitioner did not turn up. Yet another fatal defect in the
proceedings is that Ext.P3 purports to be an assessment under
section 17D but the order is passed by one officer. An affidavit is
filed by the Divisional Forest Officer.
3. In such circumstances, I feel that this is a case where
Ext.P3 is to be quashed and the matter is to be redone.
Accordingly, Ext.P3 is quashed and the matter will be redone in
accordance with law.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)
aks
