JUDGMENT C. K. Abdul Rehim :- With respect to the assessment of the petitioner for the year 1995-96, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal had remanded the matter through exhibit P7, to the assessing authority for fresh disposal, in accordance with the observations contained therein. Before finalisation of the revised assessment the petitioner had opted for payment of arrears under the Amnesty Scheme. The finalisation of revised assessment was considered by the fast track team, the second respondent herein and the assessment was finalised as per exhibit P9 invoking the provisions of section 17D of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. Subsequently on the basis of the amount finalised through exhibit P9, the amnesty was allowed to the petitioner as per exhibit P10. According to the petitioner exhibit P9 assessment was completed without issuing any notice and without giving credit to the payments already made, as well as without considering amount due for refund to the petitioner. Therefore the petitioner had submitted exhibit P11 petition seeking rectification of exhibit P9 order, under the provisions of section 43 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. Pending consideration and disposal of the rectification application, exhibit P12 notice is now issued proposing to revoke the Amnesty Scheme alleging that the petitioner had failed to make payment of the amounts allowed under the settlement. The contention of the petitioner is that exhibit P9 assessment is unsustainable in view of the fact that it is issued totally in violation of the provisions contained in section 17D. A Division Bench of this court while considering validity of section 17D had quashed similar assessments and directed fresh consideration of the matter, after strict compliance of the provisions contained in section 17D. The observations of the Division Bench in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Assistant Commissioner [2011] 37 VST 567 (Ker) (W.A. No. 1714 of 2009 and connected cases) are as follows : "12. Even though we have upheld the validity of the statutory provisions, we are unable to uphold the impugned assessments for the simple reason that none of the assessments challenged in the writ appeals or in the writ petitions was completed in accordance with the procedure contemplated under section 17D. Even though we have upheld the validity of the statutory provisions, we are unable to uphold the impugned assessments for the simple reason that none of the assessments challenged in the writ appeals or in the writ petitions was completed in accordance with the procedure contemplated under section 17D. It is clear from clause (g) of section 17D(2) that the team constituted under section 17D should fix the venue and date of hearing and hold sitting to hear the parties after issuing notice in advance to dealers concerned. Further, information in this regard should be published in local media as well. It is provided in sub-section (3) of section 17D that all assessments under fast track method should be by unanimous decision signed by all team members. It is very clear from the scheme that all the team members should sit together, consider the returns filed, accounts and records produced, hear the parties or their representatives and suggest proposal for assessment. If an assessment by consent can be passed, then assessment order should be passed in accordance with the terms agreed in the first sitting itself. The assessments that could be completed in the first sitting are cases where the team of assessing officers accept the returns filed or with such additions which the party agrees. On the other hand, if assessment is proposed in deviation with turnover returned or against additions over and above if any agreed by the parties, then it is for the very same team to issue pre-assessment notice containing proposal for assessment and the same should be signed by all of them. The party should be given sufficient time to file objections and the next date of public hearing by the committee should be informed to the party. Assessment has to be completed after hearing the party by the team on the objection filed to the pre-assessment notice and in order to have a binding assessment, the assessment should be one completed with unanimous agreement of all the team members. In fact, ex parte assessment is contemplated only when parties, who are served notices informing the venue and date of hearing, fail to appear. Here again, we are of the view that there is no harm in giving one more opportunity, if the team of officers feel that the party is not absenting deliberately. In fact, ex parte assessment is contemplated only when parties, who are served notices informing the venue and date of hearing, fail to appear. Here again, we are of the view that there is no harm in giving one more opportunity, if the team of officers feel that the party is not absenting deliberately. Since in all these cases assessments are completed by issuing pre-assessment notice by individual officers, we feel that the procedure contemplated and stated by us above is not strictly followed and so much so, orders passed cannot be sustained under the provisions of section 17D. We, therefore, allow the writ appeals and writ petitions in part by vacating the impugned assessment orders, but with direction to the assessment team to complete the assessment afresh under section 17D within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment after issuing notice to all parties and after hearing their objections. We make it clear that each and every objection raised by the parties in the reply to pre-assessment notice should be considered and unanimous decision should be taken by the team members. We do not want to examine the other issues raised in some of the cases like challenge against other statutory provisions, challenge against penalty orders, etc. These issues are left open. We leave freedom to the parties to challenge the penalty orders before statutory authorities because those are not issued under section 17D. So far as challenge against other statutory provisions are concerned, we leave it open to the parties to raise any such challenge, if required, after completion of assessments afresh as stated above." In view of the directions contained in the judgment of the Division Bench, quoted above (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Assistant Commissioner [2011] 37 VST 567 (Ker)), I am of the opinion that exhibit P9 is not sustainable. Therefore exhibit P9 is hereby quashed and the second respondent is directed to issue fresh orders in view of the directions contained in the judgment of the Division Bench in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Assistant Commissioner [2011] 37 VST 567 (Ker). Therefore exhibit P9 is hereby quashed and the second respondent is directed to issue fresh orders in view of the directions contained in the judgment of the Division Bench in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Assistant Commissioner [2011] 37 VST 567 (Ker). Since the application for benefit under the Amnesty Scheme was submitted by the petitioner at a time when exhibit P9 revised order of assessment was not issued, the orders permitting payment under the Amnesty Scheme issued as evidenced by exhibit P10 is liable to be quashed, and I declare so. Consequently exhibit P12 cancellation will also became invalid. The first respondent shall consider issuing fresh orders under the Amnesty Scheme in view of the revised assessment to be made under section 17D, in compliance with the directions as above.