IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7673 of 2010(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.GASHA STEELS PVT.LTD., NIDA, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SMT.P.T.AYSHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.SRIKUMAR SRI.CHERRY BABU SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN SRI.P.R.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.1, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (KVAT) SPECIAL CIRCLE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE INSPECTING ASST COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C. K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 7673 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 10th March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext.P9 penalty order passed by the first respondent under Section 45A of the K.G.S.T. Act . Many a reason has been stated in the Writ Petition on questions of fact and on the question of law. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the very jurisdiction to finalise the proceedings as borne by Ext. P9 is liable to be examined by this Court and that the availability of alternate remedy is not a bar ; more so, when the position has been explained by the Apex Court as per the decision in State of Punjab and others vs. Bhatinda District Co.op Milk Producers Union Ltd. [(2007) 10 VST 180 (SC)]. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. True, the existence of alternate remedy is not a bar in exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but unless and until such exceptional circumstances are pointed out, establishing flagrant violation of the legal provisions, if any, this Court will not be justified in exercising such jurisdiction; more so in W.P.(C) No. 7673 OF 2010 2 view of the fact that the number of pending litigations is mounting up day by day. 5. In the above circumstances, this Court does not propose to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . Accordingly, interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to pursue the alternate remedy available under the Statute. However, considering the persuasive submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, referring to the coercive steps at the instance of the respondents, as borne by Exts. P10 and P11, without giving reasonable time, this Court finds that some breathing time can be given to pursue the alternate remedy. Accordingly, it is ordered that all further proceedings pursuant to Exts. P10 and P11 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk