JUDGMENT : Harisankar V. Menon, J. The petitioner, who was an assessee under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) challenges Ext.P2 assessment order issued by the Fast Track Assessment Team constituted under the provisions of Section 17D of the Act. 2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows: 3. The petitioner claims to be engaged in export of coir, rubber and rubberized coir products. The dispute is with reference to the assessment year 2004-05. Ext.P1 series are the monthly returns from April, 2004 to March, 2005. 4. The assessment of the petitioner has been completed under Section 17D of the Act. The 2nd respondent passed Ext.P2 assessment order dated 29.06.2010, pursuant to the pre- assessment notice dated 08.06.2010. The petitioner points out that the pre-assessment notice dated 08.06.2010 was not served upon him. The petitioner, therefore, challenges Ext.P2 assessment order on the ground of limitation since, according to him, the proceedings have been finalised beyond the period prescribed under Section 19(1) of the Act. The petitioner also points out that the assessment was completed violating the principles of natural justice since pre-assessment notice was not served upon him. It is also contended that the petitioner being an exporter, had no liability under the provisions of the Act. 5. Counter affidavits have been filed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents, pointing out that the proceedings were completed, since the period for finalisation of assessment was not over. It is also pointed out that the pre-assessment notice as well as the assessment order were served by affixture. It is thereafter pointed out that the properties of the petitioner were proceeded against for recovery and by exercising the power under Section 51 of the Revenue Recovery Act, the property owned by the petitioner is taken as bought-in-land. 6. Subsequent to the filing of this writ petition, the counsel relinquished his engagement. Notices issued by this Court in the address of the petitioner has also been returned. 7. In such circumstances, this Court requested Sri.Kuryan Thomas, a counsel of this Court to assist the court in disposing of this writ petition. 8. Heard Sri.Kuryan Thomas, the learned Amicus Curiae as well as Sri.Sayed M.Thangal, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. 9. Sri. 7. In such circumstances, this Court requested Sri.Kuryan Thomas, a counsel of this Court to assist the court in disposing of this writ petition. 8. Heard Sri.Kuryan Thomas, the learned Amicus Curiae as well as Sri.Sayed M.Thangal, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. 9. Sri. Kuryan Thomas, points out that the assessment is illegal and liable to be set aside for the following reasons: (i) The pre-assessment notice dated 08.06.2010 was served by affixture. The reason for such service by affixture as seen from the assessment order, is not satisfactory. (ii) It is also pointed out that even the first notice requiring production of books of accounts, which according to the assessment order had been returned with the endorsement “addressee left”, is not proper service under the Act. (iii) The notice dated 08.06.2010 issued by the Fast Track Team, available at page No.217 of the assessment files, is seen signed only by the Team Head and two members, when the Team was consisting of altogether four members including the Head, and under the statute all the members have to sign the notice. (iv) It is also pointed out that the petitioner, being an exporter, had no liability under the provisions of Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 or the CST Act, 1956. It is further pointed out that a perusal of returns produced as Ext.P1 series do not disclose any taxable sale. 10. Per contra, Sri.Sayed M.Thangal, the learned Government Pleader points out the following: (i) That the pre-assessment notice dated 08.06.2010 had been served by affixture only on account of the admitted fact that the petitioner was not available at the business premises. Therefore, the Government Pleader contends that the service of notice was properly effected. (ii) It is also pointed out that signature of all the members of the Team are required only as regards the final assessment order and not with respect to the notice issued proposing assessment prior to the completion of assessment. (iii) It is also contended that there is no limitation period as regards an assessment under Section 17D, going by the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Betty Sebastian v. Assistant Commissioner, Department of Commercial Taxes, Special Circle-III, Kochi and Others [(2018) 59 GSTR 275 (Ker)]. 11. I have considered the rival submissions as well as the connected records. 12. 11. I have considered the rival submissions as well as the connected records. 12. The short issue arising for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether Ext.P2 assessment order is barred by limitation and as to whether the said order has been issued violating the principles of natural justice. 13. As regards the first issue of limitation, as rightly contended by Sri.Sayed M.Thangal, there is no limitation prescribed under the provision of Section 17D of the Act, as held by this Court in Betty Sebastian’s case (supra). Therefore, the challenge as regards the assessment order on the ground of limitation is rejected. 14. The second issue for consideration is as to whether Ext.P2 assessment order has been issued violating the principles of natural justice. Ext.P2 assessment order is issued pursuant to a notice dated 08.06.2010. In the assessment order, it is stated that the pre-assessment notice was served by affixture. Sri.Sayed M. Thangal, the learned Government Pleader had made available the assessment files. A perusal of the assessment file at page Nos.217 to 219 reveals that the notice dated 08.06.2010 was served by affixture only because on the date on which the said notice was sought to be served on the petitioner, the business address was seen locked. Apart from this, there is no other reason stated in the assessment file at page No.219. Sri.Kuryan Thomas in this regard relies on a Division Bench decision of this court in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) v. V.Gopi [ (1987) 67 STC 79 ]. This court in the said decision, with reference to the provisions of Section 55 B of the Act, held that merely because the assessee was “not found” when the notice was sought to be served, affixture cannot be attempted. The findings of this court in the said judgment are as follows: “The sole question that arises for consideration in this case, is whether it could be said that the assessee “could not be found”, to enable the serving officer to affix the notice on a conspicuous part of the shop. We are of the view that the submission of the counsel for the Revenue is that if an assessee cannot be seen, it will amount to a situation where he cannot be found. We are of the view that the submission of the counsel for the Revenue is that if an assessee cannot be seen, it will amount to a situation where he cannot be found. The expression “a person cannot be found” has been considered by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. National Cycle Importing Company [ (1941) 9 ITR 502 ]. The Madras High Court was, no doubt, construing the proviso to Section 26(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, as it stood then. It was held that in order to say that a person cannot be found, he should be dead or should have disappeared. If a person is alive, and his whereabouts are known or can be ascertained, it is impossible to say that he cannot be found. Though the Full Bench of the Madras High Court was construing the words “cannot be found” that occurred in the proviso to Section 26(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, as it stood then, we see no reason why the words that “a person cannot be found” occurring in Section 55B (b) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act should receive a different interpretation. Accordingly we hold that in order to say that a person cannot be found, within the meaning of section 55B(b) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, it should be found that that person is dead or has disappeared. It cannot apply to a case where the assessee or the particular person is alive and his whereabouts are known or can be ascertained. In this case the endorsement is clear. It is to the effect that the assessee was not seen and so a notice was served by affixture. This is not in compliance with section 55B(b) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. We hold that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that there is no valid service of pre-assessment notice in this case. On that basis, the Appellate Tribunal was further justified in setting aside the orders of the authorities below and in ordering a remit”. 15. Thus, if a person is alive, and his whereabouts are known, there is no reason for making an attempt at service by affixture. On that basis, the Appellate Tribunal was further justified in setting aside the orders of the authorities below and in ordering a remit”. 15. Thus, if a person is alive, and his whereabouts are known, there is no reason for making an attempt at service by affixture. In the case at hand, a perusal of page No.219 of the assessment file would reveal that notice was sought to be served in the business address of the petitioner. However, there is no whisper as to why the service was not sought to be effected in the residential address of the petitioner. Similarly, the notice is sought to be served by affixture on the very same date, when the notice was taken to the business premises. Therefore, the service of pre- assessment dated 08.06.2010, as pointed out in the assessment order cannot be considered to be a valid service under Section 55 B. In this connection, Sherene Eugine V. Additional Sales Tax Officer-I and Another [ (1997) 104 STC 220 ], is also relevant, wherein this court held that the endorsement of the postal department that the assessee “left” is not sufficient to infer service under the Act. 16. Similarly, the notice available at page No.217 of the assessment file is seen signed only by three members, whereas the Assessment Team was consisting of four members. Sri.Kuryan Thomas relies on the judgment of this court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Assistant Commissioner, Special Circle II, Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam and Others [2011) 37 VST 567 (Ker)], wherein the Division Bench of this court, found as under: “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. 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”. (underline supplied) Thus, it is mandatory for all the members of the Assessment Team to sign a notice issued under Section 17D of the Act. Here, the notice admittedly is signed only by three members. Therefore, the assessment pursuant to the notice dated 08.06.2010 cannot be sustained. 17. Further, it is seen that the petitioner was admittedly an exporter. A perusal of Ext.P1 series returns would also make this position clear. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent in paragraph 3, the nature of the business of the petitioner as an exporting unit is admitted. In this connection, the observation of this court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Assistant Commissioner, Special Circle II, Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam and Others [ (2011) 37 VST 567 (Ker)], to the effect that, even if the assessee does not respond to initial notice, there is no harm in granting one more opportunity, gains significance. Here, no such second notice was issued prior to finalisation of assessment. 18. Therefore, I hold that Ext.P2 assessment order cannot be said to be one validly issued under the provisions of Section 17D of the Act. Therefore, Ext.P2 is quashed. 19. The Fast Track Team shall finalise the assessment afresh after issuing a proper notice and serving the same in the residential address of the petitioner under Section 55B of the Act. 20. Before parting with this case, I place on record the appreciation for the effort put in by Sri.Kuryan Thomas, the learned Amicus Curiae. This writ petition is disposed of as above.