IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2010 / 15TH SRAVANA 1932 WA.No. 1316 of 2010 ----------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.11208/2010 DATED 5.4.2010 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ---------------------------- C.K.JACOB, PROPRIETOR, C.K.JACOB & COMPANY, PARK LANE, KOTTAYAM, CHIRAYIL HOUSE, VELOOR, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SALES TAX APPELLAT TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM. 4. SALES TAX OFFICER, SALES TAX OFFICE, II CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM. 5. THOMAS VARGHESE, THENGADAYIL, ROSE VILLA, VAZHOOR EAST, KOTTAYAM. R1 TO R4 BY SPECIAL GOVT. PLEADER SRI.VIONOD CHANDRAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.N.Ravindran, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A.No.1316 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. Aggrieved by a judgment dated 5th April, 2010 in W.P. (C) No.11208 of 2010 the unsuccessful petitioner therein preferred the present writ appeal. 2. Challenging two assessment orders Exts.P9 and P10 made under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act respectively, the writ petition came to be filed. Those orders are otherwise appealable under the abovementioned Acts. The appellant herein did not avail the statutory appellate remedy on the ground that to invoke the appellate remedy the appellant is required to pay some court fee which he was not in a position to pay and therefore approached this Court by way of the writ petition. In the abovementioned background, by the judgment under appeal, a learned Judge of this Court framed the issue involved in the writ petition as follows: W.A.No.1316 of 2010 - 2 - “Can the 'financial difficulty' of the litigant be an adequate reason, for not satisfying the “Additional Court Fee' prescribed under the relevant provisions of law to entertain the statutory appeal; for availing the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? That too, when the earlier attempt made by the very same petitioner in this regard has already been turned down by this Court declining interference in the Writ Petition, which admittedly has become final on dismissal of the Writ Appeal.” 3. The learned Judge answered the said issue at paragraph 8 of the judgment in the following lines: “It does not require any second thought for this Court to hold that alternate remedy is no bar to entertain the Writ Petition, which is a settled position. The only question is whether the 'financial difficulty' of the petitioner is a ground to exempt the petitioner from satisfying the statutory requirement of paying the additional Court fee for entertaining the appeal and to have the merits of the case considered, invoking the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No such proposition has been made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decision and no other decision in this regard has been brought to the notice of this Court. Ext.P15 and P16 applications preferred by the petitioner for exempting from such liability were rejected by the Tribunal as per Ext.P17, holding that there was no provision to provide such exemption. The correctness and sustainability of the impugned orders passed by the third and second respondents was subjected to challenge before this Court, leading to Ext.P18 judgment declining interference in the Writ Petition; which has been confirmed by the Division Bench by passing Ext.P19; dismissing the Writ Appeal. This being the position, the attempt of the petitioner to W.A.No.1316 of 2010 - 3 - reconsider the matter further, by raising the very same grounds of challenge through a fresh Writ Petition, cannot but be described as an abuse of the process of Court.” 4. We are in total agreement with the reasons and conclusions given by the learned Judge by the judgment under appeal. We see no reason to take a different view than the one taken by the learned Judge by the judgment under appeal. The writ appeal is therefore dismissed at the admission stage. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.N.Ravindran, Judge vns