IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2009 / 19TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 16434 of 2009(Y) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- P.S. JYOTHEENDRANATHAN, JYOTHI RUBBERS, VALIVATTOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON MR.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. SALES TAX OFFICER, IRINJALAKUDA. 2. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXICSE AND CUSTOMS, I.S. PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 3. DY. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR. 4. FAST TRACK TEAM, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, IRINJALAKUDA REPRESENTED BY INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIOINER, IRINJALAKUDA. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.C.K.GOVINDAN BY ADV. MR.TOJAN J.VATHIKULAM,SC,C.B. EXCISE FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 16434 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 10 th July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The impugned assessment orders have been subjected to challenge by the petitioner on different grounds particularly, on four different points raised in paragraph No.15 of the Writ Petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that all these specific aspects have not been answered in the statement filed on behalf of the first respondent. It is also pointed out by the learned Counsel that the assessment is hopelessly barred by limitation, besides contending that even though the said assessment is possible on any ground, the maximum addition could only be to an extent of 5% in view of the amended provisions of law; whereas in the instant case, 100% addition has been effected by the concerned authority. The learned Counsel has also got a case that, by virtue of the notification dated 11.04.1979, the petitioner is entitled to have W.P.(C) No. 16434 OF 2009 2 exemption, which aspect is also not considered or dealt with in the proceedings. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. The specific points raised from the part of the petitioner as referred to above, are not successfully answered either in the impugned order or in the statement filed by the respondents. This being the position, this Court finds it fit and proper to have the matter reconsidered by the 4th respondent, specifically dealing with all the contentions raised by the petitioner as aforesaid. 4. The learned Government Pleader brought it to the notice of this Court that, despite Ext. P11 judgment, the petitioner did not produce the requisite documents before the concerned authority for establishing his claim. In the said circumstance, the petitioner is liable to be directed to produce the relevant testimonials before the 4th respondent, in connection with finalisation of the proceedings as above. 5. In the above facts and circumstances, Exts.P15 to P17 orders are set aside. The 4th respondent is directed to consider W.P.(C) No. 16434 OF 2009 3 the matter afresh, taking note of the observations made herein before and also with specific reference to the binding judicial precedents, of course, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, who is directed to produce all the available documents before the 4th respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is made clear that the proceedings as above shall be finalised as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of the documents as aforesaid. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk