IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2010 / 7TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 36791 of 2009(T) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ JONCY SARTHO, PROPRIETRIX, FLASH POINT, 34/1009 E-1, M.K.K.NAIR ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-25. BY ADVS.MR.V.P.SUKUMAR MR.JAIRAM.V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, K.V.A.T. CIRCLE - II,KALAMASSERRY. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES (B) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.36791 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext.P3 and P4, mainly stating that the opportunity of being heard provided in Ext.P3 notice and to file a statement of objection if any, has been virtually watered down in view of the contents of Ext.P4 issued by the Government, whereby it is stated that the first respondent will be bound to give effect to Ext.P4 and that the proceedings are to be finalised accordingly, which according to the petitioner is not correct or proper; more so when the issuing authority does not have any power competence or jurisdiction to have issued Ext.P4 and hence under challenge. 2. The learned Government Pleader submits with reference to the contents of the statement filed by the first respondent, that the idea and understanding of the petitioner is not correct and that Ext P4 is not applicable to W.P.(C) No.36791 of 2009 -2- the case in hand. It is also stated that the apprehension expressed by the petitioner is quite wrong and misconceived and that the matter will be considered and finalised strictly on merits and in accordance with law. 3. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to file a statement of objection in response to Ext.P3 within 2 weeks, which shall be considered a by the first respondent in accordance with law, untrammelled by the contents in Ext.P4. The proceedings as above shall be finalised after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON (JUDGE) nl