IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20625 of 2010(C)
1. M/S.CALCUTTA TARPAULIN CO.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. FAST TRACK TEAM NO.V.,
3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
For Petitioner :SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :16/07/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
--------------------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 20625 OF 2010
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of
Ext.P7 notice issued by the 1st respondent proposing to revise the
assessment, already finalized by the 2nd respondent/Fast Track Team
under Section 17 D of the KGST Act as borne by Ext.P2. The scope and
applicability of provision and the manner in which it has to be finalized
under Section 17D have been explained by this Court in decision reported
in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Assistant
Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam and others [2009 (4)
KHC 819].
2. The case of the petitioner is that, the proceedings having
become final by virtue of Ext.P2 order passed by the 2nd respondent/Fast
Track Team, there is absolutely no competence, jurisdiction or authority
for the 1st respondent, who was only one of the four members of the Fast
Track Team, to have issued Ext.P7 seeking to re-open the assessment
made by the team, which hence is under challenge.
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
4. Considering the materials on record, this Court finds
considerable force in the submission made from the part of the petitioner,
2
WP(C) No. 20625/2010
obviously for the reason that Ext.P7 order issued by one of the officers of
the Fast Track Team cannot override the scope and effect of Ext.P2 order.
If at all Ext.P2 is to be varied in any manner, it could be done only by the
2nd respondent/Fast Track Team in accordance with the relevant provisions
of law. In the said circumstance, Ext.P7 is set aside without expressing
anything as to the merits; however making it clear that, this will not bar the
way of 2nd respondent in taking further steps, if at all Ext.P2 is intended to
be varied and if the same is permissible under the relevant provisions of
law.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
dnc