IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 4TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 15911 of 2006(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SANGEETHA JEWELLERY, CHITTOOR ROAD, COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MR.SHAJI PAUL. BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. COMMISSONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE-II, (KVAT) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 4. EMPOWERED COMMITTEE OF STATE FINANCE MINISTERES, ROOM NO.405, C WING, DELLHI SECRETARIAT, IP ESTATE, NEW DELHI REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY. R1 TO R3 BY G.P. SRI. TEKCHAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RETURN DATED 30.4.2005 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 14.3.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE ALL KERALA GOLD AND SILVER MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION TO THE EMPOWERED COMMITTEE OF STATE FINANCE MINISTERS. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 15911 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Writ Petition was filed on 19.6.2006 challenging the increase in rate of tax introduced on gold jewellery by Finance Act, 2006. Even though there are hundreds of dealers in the State, challenge is made only by one dealer. No stay was granted by this Court during the pendency of the WPC and consequently tax at higher rate would have been paid by the dealers including the petitioner. Sales tax being tax on commodity is collected from customers, and therefore any challenge against levy should be decided without delay and if matter is delayed, matter automatically becomes infructuous. In the circumstances, I do not propose to go into the contentions raised by the petitioner against provision providing for higher rate of tax introduced two years back. W.P. is accordingly closed leaving freedom the petitioner to challenge the provisions including that introduced by Finance Act of 2006 after stating the collections made from customers and remittances made, assessments made etc. for appropriate relief. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 2