P.K.Prathapan vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 3 August, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 21862 of 2009(C)


1. P.K.PRATHAPAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE FAST TRACK ASSESSMENT TEAM,

3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), TRICHUR-20.

4. VILLAGE OFFICER, CHIYARAM, THRISSUR DIST

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.M.FIROZ

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :03/08/2009

 O R D E R
                  P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                      W.P. (C) No. 21862 of 2009
                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                Dated, this the 3rd day of August, 2009

                                JUDGMENT

The case of the petitioner is that, quite a lot of mistakes has been

committed by the second respondent Fast Track Team, while passing

the assessment order, in respect of the assessment year 2002 – ’03 as

evident from Ext.P3. Met with the said circumstances, the petitioner has

preferred Ext.P4 petition for rectification and it is without any regard to

the pendency of the said proceedings that the respondents are

proceeding with the coercive steps as borne by Exts. P4 and P6, which

is sought to be intercepted in the present Writ Petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, on earlier

occasions, similar course was pursued by the second respondent and

in the said circumstances, the petitioner had approached this Court by

filing WPC 6093 of 2009, which led to Ext.P1 judgment. As per Ext.P1,

this Court permitted the petitioner to file necessary application for

rectification; observing that, it was for the concerned officer to verify the

orders with reference to the records and carry out the rectification to the

extent required. It was also made clear that, if the Fast Track Team

was not available, the matter had to be looked into by the Assessing

Officer in charge. The learned counsel further submits that, pursuant to

Ext.P1, the application preferred for rectification was favorably

WP (C) No. 21862 of 2009
: 2 :

considered, whereby Exts.P2, P2(a) and P2(b) rectified assessment

orders were passed in respect of the relevant years. This being the

position, the respondents 1 and 2 are bound to follow similar course in

respect of the assessment year 2002 – ’03 as well, submits the learned

counsel.

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances, the respondent 1

and 2 are directed to cause Ext.P4 application for rectification to be

considered and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with

law, as expeditiously as possible, of course after giving an opportunity

of hearing to the petitioner. This however shall be finalized at any rate

within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

kmd