IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2009 / 30TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22197 of 2009(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.METALLERGY & POLYMER ENGINEERS, 8/729-B,PUTHANPURACKAL BUILDING,THAVALAKUZHI, ETTUMANOOR PO, KOTTAYAM 686 631 REPRESENTED BY P.N.PAVITHRAN,MANAGER. BY ADV. MR. T.M.SREEDHARAN MS. C.K.SHERIN MR. V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER SALES TAX CIRCLE, ETTUMANOOR. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 22197 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 21st day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner had approached this Court earlier by filing W.P. (C) 15472 of 2009 for directing the respondent to consider Ext.P1 representation for issuance of necessary 'C forms', which led to Ext.P2 judgment, giving appropriate direction to the first respondent to have the matter considered in accordance with law. But after passing the said verdict, it is stated that the petitioner was informed vide Ext.P4 dated 18.5.2009 (stated as served upon him on 5.6.2009) to the effect that the representation preferred by the petitioner was considered and rejected as not entertainable. Met with the said circumstances, the petitioner preferred Ext.P3 representation dated 8.7.09 referring to the direction given by this Court and projecting his grievance with regard to the necessity to issue 4 'C forms' to be given to the supplier in respect of the assessment years 2005 – '06 and 2006 – '07 i.e prior to the date of cancellation of the registration certificate. Since the grievance of the petitioner was not redressed by the authority concerned, the petitioner is compelled to approach this Court again by filing the present Writ Petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, after filing the present Writ Petition, the petitioner has been served with an order WP (C) No. 22197 of 2009 : 2 : dated 5.8.2009 (produced as Ext.P5), whereby Ext.P3 representation has been turned down, referring to some rules, which according to the petitioner are not at all relevant with regard to the issue in question. The learned counsel also submits that, it is never a question of cancellation of registration, particularly since the business was stopped w.e.f. 1.4.07 and that the certificate of registration was actually surrendered by the petitioner. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, because of non issuance of C forms, the rights and interests of the petitioner have been affected much adversely, in so far as the assessment in respect of assessment years 2005-'06 and 2006 -'07 are pending consideration. 3. The learned Government Pleader, with regard to the statement filed on behalf of the first respondent submits that, the averments and allegations raised in the Writ Petition are not correct or sustainable. The learned Government Pleader also submits that, there is failure on the part of the petitioner in satisfying the statutory requirement and as such, the belated claim put forth at this distance of time is not liable to be entertained. That apart, it is also stated that Ext.P5 order passed by the first respondent is very much appealable and that the petitioner is at liberty to pursue the same. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is directed to pursue the statutory remedy by way of appeal, against Ext.P5 and if any such appeal is filed within two weeks from today, the WP (C) No. 22197 of 2009 : 3 : same shall be considered as having filed on time and it shall be considered and finalized in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 3 months. In the said circumstances, the assessment proceedings in respect of the assessment years 2005 - '06 and 2006 - 07 shall not be finalized for a period 3 months. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd