IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2009 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16005 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- C.V.PRASANTH, FRIENDS AGENCIES, THOPPIL BUILDING, ATHIRAMPUZHA ROAD, ETTUMANUR P.O., - 686 631, KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR ADV. SRI.V.DEVANANDA NARASIMHAM RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ETTUMANUR. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 16005 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 10th June, 2009 J U D G M E N T According to the petitioner, the concerned commodity ('Ujala Stiff and Shine') is leviable with the tax liability to an extent of only 4%, whereas the first respondent has passed Exts. P2 to P5 assessment orders imposing the tax liability at the rate of 12.5%, placing reliance on Ext.P1 clarification issued by the Commissioner under Section 94 of the KVAT Act, 2003. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue has already been adjudicated in favour of the petitioner as per the relevant orders passed by the Tribunal and in the said circumstances, there is absolutely no rationale on the part of the first respondent in placing reliance on the clarification given by the Commissioner. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that a Division Bench of this Court as per the decision rendered in OTA No.9 of 2007 has held that 'Ujala Stiff and Shine' is liable to tax liability at the rate of W.P.(C) No. 16005 OF 2009 2 12.5%. If it be so, the reliance placed by the petitioner, referring to the verdict passed by the Tribunal may not have any significance . Anyhow, these are all matters to be looked into by the appellate authority in the statutory appeals preferred by the petitioner. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, the first respondent is hereby directed to consider Exts. P6 to P9 appeals along with Exts. P10 to P13 stay petitions, in accordance with law, of course, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also with reference to the binding judicial precedents, if any, on the point. It is made clear that till appropriate orders are passed on Exts.P10 to P13 stay petitions, all further coercive steps stated as taken against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk