IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2009 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9653 of 2009(B) -------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M/S.KAIRALI AYURVEDIC HEALTH RESORT PVT.LTD., OLASSERY P.O., KODUMBU, PALAKKAD DIST., REPRESENTED 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), PALAKKAD. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 9653 OF 2009 B -------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th March, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P6 notice proposing to levy luxury tax for the years 2003 - 2004 to 2007 - 2008 and seeks a declaration that the petitioner's Ayurvedic Hospital is covered by the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act only with effect from 01.04.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner was registered under Ext.P5 as an Ayurvedic Hospital only after the amendment. He would, therefore, submit that there can be no luxury tax on the petitioner prior to 2008. Certainly, this is an issue which the petitioner can raise before the Authority who is bound to consider the same. Petitioner has produced Ext.P7 notice, which is a notice under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976. Petitioner submitted Ext.P8 and it is pointed out that the said reply was accepted and there was no WPC.9653/09B 2 further action and Ext.P6 is issued on 16.02.09. Certainly, this is also an aspect which the petitioner can highlight before the Officer who is bound to consider it . Merely because Ext.P6 is issued, the Officer must remind himself that he must stay within the four corners of the legal powers available to him under the Act and if the petitioner shows that the Act is not applicable to the petitioner, he is bound to drop the proceedings. The further contention of the petitioner is that even the estimation is totally arbitrary and it is pointed out that the petitioner has got Accounts. These are all matters which the petitioner should bring to the notice of the Officer who, as I have already pointed out, is bound to consider the same and bound to drop the proceedings, if the contentions of the petitioner are correct. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of relegating the petitioner to file objections to Ext.P6. Petitioner is given one month's time from today to file objections to Ext. P6 and a WPC.9653/09B 3 decision will be taken in the matter in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge