IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 30TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 5511 of 2009(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- S.CHANDRAN, FERILIZERS DEALER, CHUNGAM, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.SADASIVAN SRI.S.ABU BAKER KUNJU SRI.JOY P.JOSE SRI.RAMAN JANARDHANAN SRI.C.G.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, IST CIRCLE, ALAPPUZHA. 3. DY.COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.5511 of 2009-H ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 19th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The prayers in the writ petition read as follows: a). to issue appropriate writ direction to the IInd respondent to consider sub Rule 5 of rule 38 in determining the VAT tax due by quashing the Ext.P1 & P2 orders. b). to issue appropriate writ direction quashing the orders Ext.P5 & P6 in the light of the decision of this Hon'ble Court in Supreme Electrical Engineering Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax officer. c). to issue appropriate writ direction to follow the procedures under Sec.25(1) quashing Ext.P1 order and for reduction in Ext.P2 penalty order. 2. Petitioner calls in question Ext.P5 and P6 in the light of the decision of this Court in Supreme Electrical Engg. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer (2008 (3) KLT 805). 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. 4. After perusing Exts.P5 and P6 I feel that the petitioner is justified in complaining the orders. In view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in 2008 (3) KLT 805 (supra), Exts.P5 and P6 WPC No. 5511/2009 -2- cannot be sustained. Accordingly, Exts.P5 and P6 are quashed. The 3rd respondent will consider the application and pass appropriate orders keeping in mind the decision of this Court in 2008 (3) KLT 805 (supra) within a period of three weeks. Till such time recovery proceedings will be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. MS