IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 13366 of 2006(N) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M/S. BUILDERSWARE, CHUNGASSERI BUILDING, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, M.JALEEL AHAMMED. BY ADV. SRI.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. SALES TAX OFFICER, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. 2. KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.P.PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.13366/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DTD. 28.2.1994. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE ASST. COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM DTD. 23.12.04. P3:- COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 13.3.1995. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN TA. NO.160/95 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 21.5.1999. P5:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 14.1.2002. P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN RP. 22/02 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 12.12.2005. tss P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) No. 13366 OF 2006 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 26th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is mainly challenging Ext. P4 order passed by the second respondent Tribunal in TA No. 160/95 and Ext. P6 order passed by the very same respondent in the petition preferred for rectification. 2. The sequence of events as narrated in the Writ Petition shows that the first respondent passed Ext. P1 assessment order; aggrieved of which, the petitioner preferred statutory appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Kollam, who passed Ext. P2 order, which went against the petitioner. Met with the situation, a further appeal was preferred before the second respondent/Tribunal as borne by Ext. P3. After considering the merits involved, interference was declined by the Tribunal and the appeal was dismissed as per Ext. P4. However, contending that there were some errors apparent on the face of the records, an application was preferred for rectification of the error as borne by Ext. P5, which was considered and dismissed as per Ext. P6. This made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the above Writ Petition. 3. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on W.P. (C) No. 13366 of 2006 2 24.05.2006, the matter was admitted, however, observing that, the petitioner might, if so advised, invoke the revisional remedy against Ext. P4. 4. After hearing both the sides, including the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, this Court finds that, the remedy of the petitioner if at all aggrieved of Ext. P4, was only to have filed a revision petition invoking the power under Section 41 of the KGST Act and not by way of a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. In the above circumstances, the Court declines interference and the writ petition is dismissed, however without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to pursue revisional remedy, if the same has already been preferred, pursuant to the observation made by this Court on 24.05.06. It is also made clear that, this will not stand in the way of the petitioner in availing the benefit of the 'Amnesty Scheme', if so advised, since the said Scheme is stated as in existence till 31.12.2010 P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd