IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22854 of 2009(B)
1. CHACKO PLACKATTU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
3. THE COMMISSIONER,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.K.SASI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :20/08/2009
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P. (C) No. 22854 of 2009
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated, this the 20th day of August, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is challenging Ext.P7 series of assessment orders
passed by the second respondent; whereby huge liability is stated as
fixed on the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that, the impugned orders are not correct or sustainable on many a
ground.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
3.Obviously, Ext.P7 series orders have been passed under
Section 17 D by the members of the concerned team, shown as the
second respondent herein. However, the said orders also disclose that
the proceedings were finalized, invoking provision under Section 17 (3)
of the KGST Act, which do not go hand in hand, particularly in view of
the fact that under Section 17 (3) there is no question of any limitation
with regard to the addition of the escaped turnover; whereas the
position is entirely different under Section 17 D. On this score alone,
the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
4. Yet another aspect is that, by virtue of the specific stipulation
under the statute, any order passed under Section 17 D has to be
under the signature of all the four members of the ‘Fast Track Team’,
as contemplated under Sub section 3. In the instant case, except for
WP (C) No. 22854 of 2009
: 2 :
Ext.P7 (a), all other impugned orders i.e Exts. P7(b), (c) and (d)
signature of only 3 members are there and and as such; these orders
cannot have any valid existence.
5. In the above facts and circumstances, the impugned orders
[Exts. P7(a), (b), (c) and (d)] are set aside and the concerned
respondent is hereby directed to reconsider the matter and pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law, either under Section 17 D or
under Section 17 (3), as the case may be, of course after giving an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at
any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. It is made clear that, since the impugned orders have been
set aside, all further coercive steps, stated as being pursued against the
petitioner, shall be kept in abeyance.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
kmd