IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 23536 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.P.MOHAMMEDKUTTY HAJI, SAUDI STEELS, PATTAMBI. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SMT.K.HYMAVATHY RESPONDENT: --------------- COMMERICAL TAX OFFICER, PATTAMBI. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 23536 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 26th August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P4 order passed by the respondent allegedly without properly considering the statement of objections filed by the petitioner vide Ext. P3 in response to Ext.P1 notice issued under Section 25(1) of the VAT Act. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed quite contrary to the actual facts and relevant provisions of law and that despite the request to furnish copies of the relevant documents, the same have not been served to the petitioner, at the same time, the respondent is proceeding with similar steps in respect of the subsequent years as well, as borne by Exts. P5 to P7. 3. The learned Government Pleader submits that the grievance projected in the Writ Petition is absolutely having no merits or bonafides, in so far as the actual position has been conceded by the petitioner in the opening paragraph of Ext.P3 statement of objections submitted by the petitioner himself. It W.P.(C) No. 23536 OF 2009 2 is also pointed out that Ext.P4 impugned order is very much appealable. With regard to the grievance of the petitioner that necessary particulars have not been supplied to the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner is at liberty to have the same collected from the Commercial Tax Officer in the same manner, following the same course pursued by him in respect of Ext.P1. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, interference is declined. The petitioner is at liberty to pursue the statutory remedy available in respect of Ext. P4. The petitioner can also pursue further proceedings, pursuant to the objections stated as filed in respect of Exts.P5 to P7. It is made clear that if the petitioner approaches the Commercial Tax Officer for furnishing the details as sought for in Exts.P8 and P9, the same shall be considered and supplied in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is dismissed. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk