IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2009 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 10841 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- M/S. KAIRALI AYURVEDIC HEALTH RESORT PVT. LTD., OLASSERY.P.O.,KODUMBU, PALKKAD DISTRICT., REP. BY ITS MANAGER(OPERATIONS) SHRI.ARUN.R.S. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN SMT.C.K.SHERIN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER(WC & LT) PLALAKKAD. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 10841 OF 2009 A -------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th April, 2009 JUDGMENT Proceedings are taken against the petitioner under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976. Petitioner was served with notice. Petitioner had approached this Court and obtained Ext.P3 Judgment 25.3.2009. However, Ext.P4 order is passed. Petitioner complains violation of Ext.P3 Judgment. Heard Shri T.M. Sreedharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that this is a case where the order of this Court is not complied with. Petitioner had filed objection before the Officer. It is not in dispute that before passing the impugned order, only one week's time was granted. Petitioner filed objection wherein he challenged the applicability of the Act and he also sought time to file objection. The order is passed, however, not granting the time and it is also pointed out that the order is passed without communicating the rejection of the WPC.10841/09 A 2 request for grant of time. However, I note that the petitioner had challenged the notice and in Ext.P3 Judgment, this Court had granted a month's time to file objections. It is true that the order is dated 25.3.2009. But, the learned Government Pleader points out that it was communicated only on 26.3.2009. By that time, this Court had rendered the Judgment. More importantly, in the facts of this case, I feel that the interest of justice requires that an order should be passed after filing detailed objections and the petitioner should be given time to file detailed objections. In such circumstances, I quash Ext.P4, however, subject to the condition that the petitioner will remit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/= (Rupees Five Lakhs) within two weeks from today. Upon payment of Rs.5,00,000/= (Rupees Five Lakhs) and also filing objection in the meantime, as the petitioner is advised to file, the first respondent will take up the matter. In order to facilitate an early hearing, the representative of the petitioner will be present before the first respondent on 30.4.2009 at 11 AM and thereafter the first respondent will take a decision in the matter in WPC.10841/09 A 3 accordance with law. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge