IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 28TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 27561 of 2008(F) --------------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- TVM AROMATICS PVT LTD.,41/281-B, MAHAKAVI BHARATHIYAR ROAD, KOCHI 682 035, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR T.. RAJESH SHENOY. BY ADV. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (AA), ERNAKULAM. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, THIRD CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DY. COMMISSIONER (AUDIT ASSESSMENT) COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES, DEPARMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 27561 OF 2008 F -------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th September, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P11 order. Ext.P11 order is passed on the basis of a notice issued under Section 25 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. Petitioner has filed a reply. The main complaint of the petitioner, of course, is that the petitioner had approached this Court earlier and by Ext.P7 Judgment dated 29.8.2008 this Court had directed that the contentions of the petitioner shall be considered after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is pointed out that the Judgment of this Court was brought to the notice of the assessing authority on the next day by letter. But, Ext.P11 order has been passed without complying with the directions. Ext.P11 is dated 10.7.2008 ie. much prior to the date of Ext.P7 Judgment. Of course, counsel for petitioner submits that in view of the fact that the petitioner was served with the order only on 2.9.2008, the order should be deemed to have been passed on that day and WPC. 27561/08 F 2 also the demand notice was issued only after the date of the Judgment. Learned Government Pleader would submit that there is nothing wrong in issuing the demand notice after the notice of assessment and in this case the assessment was completed prior to the petitioner approaching this Court. 2. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I feel that having regard to the issues which are raised, it is only appropriate that the petitioner is relegated to prefer Appeal. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of relegating the petitioner to prefer Appeal against Ext.P11. In order to facilitate the petitioner approaching the Appellate Authority, it is ordered that recovery steps initiated against the petitioner will be kept in abeyance for a period of six weeks from today. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy// PS to Judge