Back
2010 Supreme(Online)(KER) 38679
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
M.S.SUBBAIAH – Appellant
Versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,SPECIAL CIRCLE – Respondent
WP(C)/23732/2010
MR. V.V.ASOKAN, MR. K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER, MR. K.S.SAJEEV KUMAR
Statutory compliance in assessment orders is crucial; failure to adhere renders the orders invalid.
Headnote:
Assessment - KGST Act - Section 17 D - Court scrutinized compliance with statutory requirements for assessment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an assessment order from the Fast Track Team regarding the assessment year 2004-'05 under Section 17 D of the KGST Act, filing an appeal after the Tribunal noted a defect in compliance with statutory requirements.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the assessment order was signed by only three members of a four-member team, violating statutory requirements, rendering the order unsustainable.
Issues: Whether the assessment order complied with statutory requirements under Section 17 D of the KGST Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of full compliance with statutory requirements in issuing assessment orders, affirming that non-compliance invalidates such orders.
Final Decision: The court set aside the assessment order and directed a fresh assessment to be concluded within two months.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of assessment order passed by the Fast Track Team, in respect of the assessment year 2004-'05, under Section 17 D of the KGST Act . Challenging Ext. P3 order passed in this regard, the petitioner preferred Ext. P4 appeal before the Tribunal along with Ext. P4 (a) petition for stay and also accompanied by Ext. P4 (b) petition to condone the delay. The sixth respondent/Tribunal noted the defect vide Ext. P5 stating that, the statutory prescription as contemplated under Sub section 5 of Section 17 D has not been complied with so as to entertain the appeal, which made the petitioner to approach this Court.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the issue with regard to the manner of assessment to be made by the Fast Track team has been explained by this Court inW.A. No. 1714 of 2009 and connected cases (Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner and others) which has been reported in2009 (4) KHC 819.
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
4. Obviously, going by materials on record, particularly the contents of Ext. P3 assessment order which is impugned, it is seen that same has been signed by only '3 members' of the Team consisting of 'four' members, which is not in conformity with the statutory requirement and as made clear by this Court in the decision cited supra.
5. In the above facts and circumstances, Ext. P3 is not correct or sustainable and the position cannot be varied, even if the appeal is entertained by the appellate authority and the matter will have to be remanded back to the assessing authority. Hence, this Court does not find it necessary to relegate the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy. Accordingly, Ext. P3 is set aside and the concerned authority is directed to finalize the assessment afresh, in accordance with law and observation made by this Court in the decision, 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. No cost.
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd
