IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 16TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1789 of 2010(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.A.K.AZAD, PROPRIETOR, M/S.INTERNATIONAL TRADE LINKS, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-36. BY ADV. SRI.RAJU JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SALES TAX OFFICER II, CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KANNUR AT ERNAKULAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.P.PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 1789 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated, this the 5th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved of Ext.P4 order passed by the 2nd respondent/1st appellate authority in respect of the KGST assessments for the assessment years 1998-99 to 2000-’01. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the assessment order passed by the concerned authority has been intercepted by the said appellate authority giving substantial reliefs to the petitioners, the contentions raised by the petitioner/appellant have not been considered and allowed completely and that the directions given to the assessing authority to modify the order limiting the extent as specified therein has been subjected to challenge in this Writ Petition. The learned counsel also places reliance on the relevant provisions of law and also the decisions reported in Yeses International Vs. State of Kerala [2008 (4) KLT 454], M/s. Veliparambil Hardwares Vs. State of kerala 1993 KLJ Taxes cases 421. 2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the idea and understanding of the petitioner as to the legal position is not at all correct or proper. It is also submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner is not entitled to get the WP(C) No.1789/2010 2 benefits even to the extent as provided in Ext.P4 and that the matter has already been taken up before the higher authority, challenging the same, to the said extent. 3. Considering the rival submissions made as above, this Court finds that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the 2nd respondent and appropriate orders are to be passed based on the actual facts and figures and also applying correct position of law. Accordingly, Ext.P4 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the 2nd respondent who shall consider the same 'de- novo' and appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law, of course after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner; which exercise shall be pursued and finalized, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. So as to facilitate early disposal of the case, the petitioner shall appear before the 2nd respondent on 24.02.2010. It is also made clear that till the proceedings are finalized as above, all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned assessment orders passed by the 1st respondent shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc