IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2010 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 579 of 2010(V) ------------------------ PETITIONER: --------------- SMT.K.H.SHEREENA, M/S.POOMALA GRANITES, CHERUKUNNAM P.O., ASAMANNOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.T.RADHAMANY RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (DEPUTATION) SECOND CIRCLE, PERUMBAVOOR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY (TAXES), GOVT.SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2010 ALONG WITH W.P.( C) 777 OF 2010 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 579, 777, 1233, & 3174 OF 2010 & 33248 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 3rd March , 2010 J U D G M E N T The issue involved in all these cases is more or less the same. The basic prayer is to permit the petitioners to remit the compounded tax at the rate of 25000/- per annum for the stone crusher units, as provided under Circular No.3/2009 issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. 2. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that it was only a 'proposal' and hence that the contents of the said Circular are not liable to be acted upon. Subsequently, Finance Act, 2009 came into effect,whereby the manner of assessment of tax has been clearly dealt with, specifying the parameters . Though Ext.P1 Circular was issued , the proposal did not materialise and therefore the petitioners cannot have any vested right based on the said Circular, particularly in view of the 'Act' brought in subsequently, clearly specifying the actual facts and figures . 3. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court earlier in W.P.(C) 32866 OF 2009, after considering the rival submissions, this Court passed the final verdict dated 05.02.2010, W.P.(C) No. 579, 777, 1233, & 3174 OF 2010 & 33248 OF 2009 2 whereby similar contentions as put forth from the part of the petitioners were turned down and the Writ Petition was dismissed. The aggrieved party preferred W.A.No.284 of 2010, which also happened to be dismissed as per the verdict passed on 19.02.2010 and thus, the issue has become final. This being the position , the petitioners are not entitled for any benefit based on the said Circular. Interference is declined and all these Writ Petitions are dismissed. However with regard to the alternate prayer, to allow the petitioners to pay the tax on 'turnover basis', the petitioners are left at liberty to approach the concerned authorities for appropriate reliefs, on which event, such applications shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed by the concerned authority, as expeditiously as possible.. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners might be permitted to clear the outstanding liability by way of reasonable installments, in view of the difficulties expressed to raise the funds in lump sum. Considering the persuasive submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are permitted to clear the liability by way of three equal monthly installments, the first of which shall be effected on or before W.P.(C) No. 579, 777, 1233, & 3174 OF 2010 & 33248 OF 2009 3 30.03.2010, to be followed by similar installments to be effected on or before the 30th of the succeeding months. Subject to the above, all recovery proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioners shall be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that if any default is committed in effecting the installments as above, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realization of the entire outstanding liability in a lump sum, from the stage where it stands now. The Writ Petitions are disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk