High Court Kerala High Court

Century Plyboards(India)Ltd. vs The Commissioner Of Commercial … on 5 April, 2010

Kerala High Court
Century Plyboards(India)Ltd. vs The Commissioner Of Commercial … on 5 April, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 11479 of 2010(H)


1. CENTURY PLYBOARDS(INDIA)LTD.,REGISTERED
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,SPECIAL

3. THE FAST TRACK TEAM,DEPARTMENT OF

4. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.SRIKUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :05/04/2010

 O R D E R
                    P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
                   ---------------------------
                      W.P(C) No. 11479 of 2010-H
                  ----------------------------
                Dated this the 5th day of April, 2010.

                           J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is aggrieved of Exts.P3 and P4 assessment

orders passed by the third respondent/Fast Track Team, presumably

under Section 17(D) of the KGST Act. But the ‘pre-assessment

notice’ as borne by Ext.P1 dated 9.10.2009 is stated as issued under

Section 17(3); that too, signed by a ‘single officer’; of course

referring to the Fast Track Team, Ernakulam.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

course pursued by the departmental authorities, finalising the

assessment simultaneously under both the Sections 17(3) and 17(D),

has already been deprecated by this Court, setting aside the orders

and directing to finalise the assessment by curing the defect as

ordered in Ext.P5 judgment passed under the similar circumstances.

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

4. On going by the materials on record, it is very much

evident that Ext.P1/’pre-assessment notice’ is not in conformity with

the statutory requirements and as a natural consequence, Exts.P3

W.P(C) No. 11479 of 2010-H 2

and P4 assessment orders cannot have any valid existence in law.

That apart, the course and procedure to be followed by the

concerned authority in passing the assessment orders under Section

17(D) has been explained by this Court as per the decision in

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner,

Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam & others 2009(4) KHC 819.

5. In the above circumstances, the impugned proceedings

are not liable to be sustained. Accordingly, Exts.P1, P3 and P4 are

set aside. The third respondent/competent authority is directed to

re-consider the matter and finalise the assessment after giving an

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law, and

also taking the observations made by this court in the decision cited

supra, 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 allowed as above. No cost.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE

ab