IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2009 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35648 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P. JAYACHANDRAN, PROPRIETOR, SPAN CONSTRUCTIONS, K.M. COMPLEX, 23/381, CHERPLASSERY ROAD, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WC), PALAKKAD. 2. THE PRINCIPAL, SREE NARAYANA COLLEGE, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.35648 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Petitioner is a registered dealer engaged in works contract, borne on the files of the 1st respondent. With respect to the year 2008-09 the petitioner was issued with Ext.P1 notice by the 1st respondent, requesting him to file fresh return on the ground that the rate of tax applicable is 8% plus 1% Cess, instead of 4% conceded by the petitioner. Petitioner filed detailed reply to Ext.P1 notice as evidenced from Ext.P2, wherein he had raised contention that, he is liable for payment of tax only at the rate of 4%. It is submitted that the 1st respondent has not considered the objections and finalised the matter. In the meanwhile the 1st respondent had issued Ext.P4 notice to the awarder of the work, who is the 2nd respondent herein, directing to deduct 8% tax from the contract bills of the petitioner for the financial year 2008-09 and to remit the differential amount of tax so deducted, within 10 days, failing which penal action is threatened against the awarder. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that the dispute regarding rate of tax need adjudication at the hands of the W.P.(C).35648/09-A 2 1st respondent, taking note of the contentions raised in Ext.P2. The action taken in Ext.P4 notice even without finalising the dispute, is not justifiable and is creating prejudices and financial loss to the petitioner. Therefore the petitioner is seeking direction to keep in abeyance Ext.P4. 3. Having considered facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the matter can be disposed of directing the 1st respondent to take a decision on the basis of Ext.P1 and Ext.P2, before proceeding with further steps. Therefore the 1st respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 on the basis of Ext.P1 notice issued, at the earliest, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If orders are already issued on the basis of Ext.P1 notice and P2 objection, the same shall be communicated to the petitioner at the earliest. 4. The directions contained in Ext.P4 notice shall not be implemented till a decision is taken by the 1st respondent as directed above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb