IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 8TH ASWINA 1932 WA.No. 1675 of 2010 ----------------------------- [THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.12440/2010 DTD. 19/08/2010] .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- M/S.H&R JOHNSON (INDIA), (A DIVISION OF PRISM CEMENT LIMITED WITH EFFECT FROM 3.3.2010) 40/97, P.T.USHA ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS MANAGER, SRI.M.UNNIKRISHNAN. BY SRI. JOSEPH KODIANTHARA, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SMT.K.LATHA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE-1 ERNAKULAM-682 019. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM-682 019. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MUHAMMED RAFEEQUE. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- Writ Appeal No.1675 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th September, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard the Senior counsel appearing for the appellant and the Government Pleader for the respondents. What was challenged before the learned Single Judge was revised assessment completed under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act for the year 2005-2006. The learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the matter because of availability of effective alternate remedy that is statutory appeal to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). Before us, the Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the revised returns filed were not considered by the Assessing Officer. We do not think that this is a ground for interfering with the matter because the Appellate Authority has full powers as that of the Assessing Authority and it is for him to consider the admissibility of revised returns and evidence produced by the appellant to W.A.No.1675 of 2010 2 substantiate their claim. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with the above observation. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/