IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 30TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4206 of 2010(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- M/S LARSON & TOUBRO LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE AT L&T HOUSE, BALLARD ESTATE, PO BOX 278, MUMBAI-400 001 AND BRANCH AT "SKYBRIGHT" BUILDINGS, RAVIPURAM JUNCTION, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI 682 016 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SATISH SANGAMESWARAN. BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY FINANCE SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE-II (KVAT), ERNAKULAM. BY SPECIAL GOVT. PLEADER(TAXES), SRI.VINOD CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 4206 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court with the following reliefs: “a) declare that Section 6(1)(e) and (f) of the KVAT Act, 2003 as ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 265, 286, 366(12) and 366(29A) of the Constitution of India, 1950. b) declare that Rule 19(2) (a) and (b) of the KVAT Rules, 2005 as ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 265, 286, 366(12) and 366((A) of the Constitution of India, 1950. c) declare that the petitioner can be assessed to tax only on the actual value of goods at the time of incorporation in the execution of works contract and no other amounts other than the actual value of goods can be made liable to tax where the transfer is in the form of goods or where transfer is not in the form of goods but in some other form. d) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Ext.P4 and Ext.P11. e) issue a writ in the nature of Prohibition or such other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the respondents from recovering the amount inpursuance of Ext.P11 or der under revenue recovery proceedings or in any other manner known to law. f) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent WP(C) No. 4206 of 2010 -:2:- to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P12 application for rectification.” 2. When the matter came up for consideration, the learned Special Government Pleader(Taxes) who took notice for the respondents submitted that some of the issues raised by the petitioner are covered in favour of the assessee as per the judgment reported in State of Andra Pradesh v. Larsen Tourbo Limited [(2008) 17 VST 1]. Similarly some other similar questions are also covered in favour of the State by a Division Bench decision of this Court in WA No.586/07 and connected cases. Some other points are also decided by virtue of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in favour of the assessee. 3. Heard both sides. Learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) submits that the matter can be caused to be reconsidered with an 'open remand'. Accordingly, Ext.P11 order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the 2nd respondent, who shall consider the entire aspects, factual as well as legal, in accordance with law and final verdict shall be passed, after giving WP(C) No. 4206 of 2010 -:3:- an opportunity of being heard to both the sides, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE ttb