JUDGMENT In these writ petitions, the petitioners are assessees under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. Their assessment was completed by a Fast Track Assessment Team under Section 17D of the KGST Act. Thereafter, the regular assessing officer sought to invoke powers under Section 19(1) of the Act to assess alleged escaped turnover. That is under challenge in this writ petition. The contention of the petitioners is that, the regular assessing authority cannot, even with the sanction from the Commissioner, invoke Section 19(1) of the KGST Act, when a separate complete procedure has been prescribed under Section 17D of the KGST Act for completing certain assessments which procedure has been invoked and the assessment has been completed by a Fast Track Team. They point out that once Section 17D assessment is completed, the normal channel of appeal is not available to the petitioners and the petitioners can only challenge the same before the Tribunal that too after paying the full tax assessed. That procedure has been devised by the legislature to give finality to Fast Track Assessments and having completed the assessment under Section 17D it is unjust and unreasonable for the regular assessing authority which is not even a party to the Fast Track Assessment Team to revise the assessment on the ground that certain turnover has escaped assessment. They also rely on a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 14157/2010. The petitioners therefore seek to quash the revised assessment made under Section 19(1) of the KGST Act by the assessing authority. This is opposed by the learned Government Pleader. According to him, the fact that a 17D assessment has been completed by the Fast Track Assessment Team does not debar the regular assessing authority from invoking Section 19(1) for assessing escaped turnover with the permission of the Commissioner. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the legislature has devised a new procedure for assessment of certain turnover as per a different procedure under Section 17D of the Act. The consequences of the assessment under Section 17D and normal assessment are different. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the legislature has devised a new procedure for assessment of certain turnover as per a different procedure under Section 17D of the Act. The consequences of the assessment under Section 17D and normal assessment are different. In the normal assessment, the appeal lies to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) whereas under Section 17D the appeal lies to the Tribunal that too only after paying the entire tax assessed and therefore I am of opinion that after having initiated proceedings under Section 17D of the Act the assessment has to be completed only under that Section. Otherwise it would result in two parallel proceedings namely an appeal before the Tribunal under Section 17D and an appeal against the 19(1) assessment before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) which will cause undue hardship to the assessees. Therefore, I am of opinion that when the assessment is completed under Section 17D, it is only appropriate escaped turnover, if any, also be assessed by the Fast Track Assessment Team itself under Section 17D. In that view the impugned orders are quashed. However, I make it clear that if the Fast Track Assessment Team is satisfied that any turnover has escaped assessment it would be open to the Fast Track Assessment Team to take up the matter and complete the assessment proceedings for assessing such escaped turnover also, in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of as above.