IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15103 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.HDFC BANK LIMITED, ELMAR SQUARE, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682016 REPRESENTED BY MR.MANOJ KUMAR P.M., SENIOR MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH JERARD SAMSON RODRIGUES SRI.ROVIN RODRIGUES RESPONDENT(S): --------------- ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSMT.) SPECIAL CIRCLE-1, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM 682015. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 15103 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:- 1. To issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order of direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, calling for the records leading to the issue of Ext.P1 assessment order and after scrutinizing the same to strike down and quash the same. 2. To issue a Writ of Prohibition or other appropriate writ or orders restraining the first respondent or anybody acting on their behalf from proceeding further on the basis of Ext.P1 assessment order and Ext.P2 demand notice till the disposal of this Writ Petition. 3. To issue a Writ of Mandamus restraining the respondent from taking any proceeding for recovery of the tax and interest demanded as per Ext.P1 assessment order and Ext.P2 demand notice. 4. To pass such other and further orders and reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P1 assessment order has been passed against the petitioner mainly because of the clarification issued by the Commissioner as borne by Ext.P3 and this being the position, the statutory remedy by way of appeal may not be a meaningful exercise, since the appellate authority is also bound by the clarification issued by the Commissioner by virtue of sub-section (5) of 2 WP(C) NO.15103/2010 Section 94 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits that the remedy of the petitioner, if aggrieved of Ext.P3 clarification issued under Section 94 of the Act is by way of filing 'OTA' in view of the law declared by this Court on the point and not by filing a Writ Petition, which appears to be correct. 3. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and relegate the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy, if at all aggrieved in any manner because of Ext.P3. However, in view of the persuasive submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, referring to Ext.P2 coercive steps being pursued for realisation of the amount allegedly due from the petitioner, it is made clear that such proceedings shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc