Loading...

Vazhathopu General Marketing … vs State Of Kerala on 14 August, 2009

Kerala High Court
Vazhathopu General Marketing … vs State Of Kerala on 14 August, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 22623 of 2009(W)


1. VAZHATHOPU GENERAL MARKETING CO-OP.
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. KERALA AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND

3. FIRST TALUK ADALATH TEAM,

4. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,

5. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :14/08/2009

 O R D E R
                   P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
               ........................................................................
                   W.P.(C) No. 22623 OF 2009
               .........................................................................
                     Dated this the 14th August, 2009

                                   J U D G M E N T

The grievance of the petitioner is that Ext.P3 assessment order

passed by the Fast Track Team consisting of four Members do not

bear the signature of all the four Members of the Team and that the

same has actually been signed only by one of the Members. The

learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is clear violation

of sub section (3) of 17D of the KGST Act which stipulates that the

said proceedings under Section 17D shall bear the signature of all the

Members concerned. The legal position in this regard has been made

clear by this Court as well.

2. The learned Government Pleader, on instruction, submits that

the original assessment order reportedly bears the signature of all

the four Members concerned and that Ext. P3 is only a copy. Prima

facie , this Court is not satisfied with the said submission, in so far as

a copy means a ‘true copy’ of the original and nothing less. Obviously,

Ext. P3 contains the names as well as the designation of all the four

Members of the Team, with adequate space for subscribing the

signature of each member. But the same has been signed by only

W.P.(C) No. 22623 OF 2009

2

one officer and copy of the same has been marked to the petitioner

and others concerned.

3. This being the position, any subsequent attempt to cure the

defect cannot solve the situation and as such, the matter has to be

reconsidered by the third respondent. Accordingly, Ext. P3 is hereby

set aside . The third respondent is directed to re-consider the matter

and final orders shall be passed, after giving an opportunity of hearing

to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The

petitioner shall appear before the 4th respondent in this regard, along

with a copy of the judgment on or before the 29th of this month as

suggested by the Government Pleader. It is also made clear that

since Ext. P3 has already been set aside, Ext.P7 notice issued is of

no consequence/significance.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.

lk

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information