IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2009 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 6606 of 2009(U) ------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.MULLANKOLLY RUBBER & AGRICULTURAL MARKETING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., MULLANKOLLY, WAYANAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY K.K.BINDU. BY ADV. SRI.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & SALES TAX OFFICER, SULTAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 6606 OF 2009 U -------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th March, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner calls in question Exts.P2 and P4. Ext.P2 is a notice of demand. The challenge to the notice of demand by itself may not be maintainable. As far as Ext.P4 is concerned, even according to the petitioner, the proceedings would show that it is an order rejecting the petition seeking refund of the output tax remitted in excess. The reason stated, of course, is that the petitioner filed revised returns for the period from 4/06 to 3/07 only on 15.11.2007, beyond the time limit. According to the petitioner, it is not open to the Officer to blow hot and cold, as he has done by relying on the revised returns, which supports the Revenue and rejecting that part of the revised returns which is against the Revenue. Section 55 of the KVAT Act provides for Appeals. It is not an order passed by an Officer above the rank of the Assistant Commissioner, as it is an order passed by the Sales Tax Officer. Nothing is pointed out to show WPC.6606/09 U 2 how Ext.P4 is not appealable. Apparently, it is not among the proceedings or orders which are not appealable. In such a case, there is a right of appeal. In such circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of relegating the petitioner to appeal the decision contained in Ext.P4. The proceedings will be kept in abeyance for one month from today so as to enable the petitioner to seek relief before the Appellate Authority. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge