IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30363 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S. MAPPADAM RUBBER FACTORY, THANIKUDAMN, KURICHIKKARA, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY K.K.JAMALUDEEN, PARTNER. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASST. COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), COMMERCIAL TAXES SPECIAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: shg/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 30363 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. In compliance of directions contained in Exts.P1 to P3 orders passed in appeal filed against the assessments pertaining to the years 1989-90 to 1996-97, the 1st respondent had issued revised assessment orders as evidenced by Exts.P7 to P13. According to the petitioner, before passing the revised orders the petitioner claimed benefit of Ext.P4 Notification, through Ext.P6 request. Contention is that by virtue of the provisions in Ext.P4 Notification they are entitled to get exemption from paying purchase tax with respect to purchase of field latex. According to the petitioner Ext.P4 Notification is issued with retrospective effect from 01.04.1988. But while the revised orders of assessment were issued, the 1st respondent had not considered such request. 2. In the statement filed on behalf of the 1st respondent it is contended that the petitioner had never W.P.(C)No. 30363 of 2009 -2- raised any such claim based on Ext.P4 Notification, either when the returns were filed or when the accounts were produced. It is further contended that the petitioner was not having any such claim for exemption, either at the stage of assessment or at the stage of appeal. The assessing authority is not supposed to go beyond the direction while passing revised assessments is the contention. 3. Since the revised assessment stands completed, the petitioner is at liberty to invoke statutory remedy available under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (KGST Act) to get it rectified. Needless to say that if the petitioner is approaching the 1st respondent with any such valid petition under the statute, the same shall be considered and the eligibility of the petitioner need be decided on the basis of the notification, notwithstanding the fact that the appellate orders does not contain any such specific directions. It is further directed that if any such application is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be W.P.(C)No. 30363 of 2009 -3- considered and disposed of by the 1st respondent without any further delay. The writ petition disposed of with the above observations. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE shg/