IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 16TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 14263 of 2007(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.MALABAR TIMBER COMPANY, POWER HOUSE ROAD, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI.M.MAMMEN. BY ADV. SMT.S.K.DEVI SRI.K.P.PRADEEP (PAYYANNUR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (KERALA), VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (FINANCE), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, VAT CIRCLE I DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAX, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, VAZHIKKADAVU, MALAPPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC.14263/07 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.50/06 DATED 18.12.06 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.53 OF 2006 DATED 22.12.06 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION ORDER NO.A9/SALES/CR- 71/2006-07 DATED 24.1.07 OF THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, MADIKERI DIVISION, MADIKERI. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION ORDER NO. A9/SALES/CR- 71/2006-07 DATED 28.2.07 OF THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, MADIKERI DIVISION, MADIKERI. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE TAX INVOICE NO.LND/CR-1/SALES/06-07 DATED 24.1.07 OF THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, VIRAJPET DIVISION, VIRAJPET. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE EXPORT-IMPORT CODE ALLOTMENT LETTER F NO.IRC/493/88/EKM/3750 DATED 22.6.1988 ISSUED BY MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. /TRUE COPY/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.14263 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the petitioner points out quite rightly that the question raised in the writ petition stands answered against the petitioner by the judgment reported in SPL Limited v. Commercial Taxes Inspector [2009(4) KLT SN 25]. The writ petition is hence dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.