IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2010 / 25TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22240 of 2010(D) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- GANDHIGRAM AGRO-BASED INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIEVE SOCIETY LTD., KURUVILANGAD P.O., KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI GEORGE MANI. BY ADV. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONR (KGST), COMMERCIAL TAXES (SPECIAL CIRCLE) KOTTAYAM. 2. THE DY.COMMISSIONR (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES KOTTAYAM. 3. KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOTTAYAM. BH GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 22240 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Exts.P1 to P5 orders passed by the concerned respondents raising many a ground. The basic grievance of the petitioner is that, the petitioner did not get sufficient opportunity to substantiate the case before the 2nd respondent, when the appeals were finalized by the said respondent. It is against the said order that, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing Ext.P4 appeal, wherein interference has been declined as per Ext.P5, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits with reference to the materials on record that, sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to substantiate the case; which however was not properly availed of. Reference is also made to the admission made by the petitioner in paragraph 2 (ground 2) of Ext.P4 appeal, wherein it is stated that the defect notice issued by the 2nd respondent was misplaced in the society and could not cure the defect. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is ready with all the relevant records and that the matter requires to be considered on merit; lest irreparable 2 WP(C) No. 22240/2010 loss and injuries should be caused to the petitioner. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that an opportunity can be given to the petitioner to have Ext.P2 appeal reconsidered by the 2nd respondent on merit. Accordingly, Ext.P5 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P2 appeal and pass final orders on merit, in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment on condition that the petitioner satisfies 1/3rd of the disputed liability and furnishes security for the balance amount within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc