IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2008 / 1ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 3904 of 2005(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT AUTO PARTS DEALERS ASSOCIATION, REG.NO.ER/381/91, C/O.POOMKUDY AGENCIES LTD., N.H.EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN- 682 024, REPRESENTED BY ZACHARIAS POOMKUDY, PRESIDENT. 2. M/S.BENZ AUTOMOBILES (P) LTD., CC XXXIV/1851/(E) BENZ TOWERS, EDAPPALLY, COCHIN-682 024, REPRESENTED BY MG. DIRECTOR. BY ADV. DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY (SR.) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), SALES TAX OFFICE, SPECIAL CIRCLE-II, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-15. BY G.P. SRI.TEKCHAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2008, THE COURT ON 23/07/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE UNDER KGST ACT DT.19.7.1995. P2: .DO. UNDER CST ACT .DO. P3: TRUE COPY OF LIST OF MEMBERS OF FIRST PETITIONER-ASSOCIATION. P4: TRUE COPY OF RESOLUTION AUTHORISING THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIRST PETITIONER-ASSOCIATION TO FILE THE W.P. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.3904 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT The first petitioner is an association of automobile parts dealers and the second petitioner is a member of the association challenging increase in registration fee for granting registration and renewal of registration under the KGST Act. The issue is covered by judgment of this court in KERALA ELECTRIC TRADES ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER V. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS (2004) 12 KTR 114(Ker). Even though counsel submitted that excess fee paid should be refunded, a Division Bench of this court has held that refund arises to those who contested the increase in fee. Consequently W.P. is disposed of following the abovereferred judgment and with the same findings, observations and directions contained in that judgment. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms