IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2009 / 27TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 29184 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.KANIYAMPURAM METAL INDUSTRIES, ST.VINCENT CONVENT ROAD, NEAR VINCENTIAN HOME, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-25, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER K.G.JOYCE. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SMT.NIVEDITA A.KAMATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, K.V.A.T.CIRCLE II, KALAMASSERRY, AT PALARIVATTOM. 2. THE COMMISSIONSER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.P. PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 29184 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 19th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a manufacturer of rolling shutters, involved in the business of fabrication and installation of rolling shutters as per orders from customers. The petitioner applied for payment of tax at compounded rate which was originally accepted. Thereafter proceedings were initiated for revising the assessment orders for the years 2005-2006 to 2007-2008 on the premise that petitioner is not entitled to compounding. According to the petitioner, the issue is covered by the decisions of the Supreme Court in M/s. Vanguard Rolling Shutters & Steel Works Appellant v. The Commissioner of Sales Tax. [39 STC 372] Sentinel Rolling Shutters & Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Sales Tax [42 STC 409], in which, according to the petitioner, it is held that fabrication and installation of rolling shutters is a works contract. However, the 2nd respondent issued a clarification under Section 94 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, holding that work of fabrication and installation of rolling shutters involves sale of goods and therefore not compoundable. The said W.P(C) No. 29184 of 2009 -2- clarification was earlier challenged before this court by other assessers and a Division Bench of this Court has up held that clarification. The petitioner would contend that the said judgment has been rendered without considering Supreme Court decisions in M/s. Vanguard Rolling Shutters & Steel Works Appellant v. The Commissioner of Sales Tax. [39 STC 372] Sentinel Rolling Shutters & Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Sales Tax [42 STC 409]. Therefore the petitioner would submit that Ext.P5 judgment of the Division Bench passed on OTA 11 of 2008 requires reconsideration in the light of the above said Supreme Court decisions. 2. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not disputed before me that the issue involved in the writ petition is squarely covered by the decision in Ext.P5 judgment of the Division Bench. The judgment of the Division Bench is binding on me. Therefore, I have no option but to dismiss the writ petition, following Ext.P5 judgment. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs