IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2011 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 36291 of 2005(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------- S.V.SURESH KUMAR, S/O.P.V.VALSALAN, VALAYAMKANDATHIL, P.O.KUMARAKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.SATHYA SHREEPRIYA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, PONKUNNAM. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KOTTAYAM. 3. THE EXCISE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOTTAYAM. 4. SANTHOSH P.VARGHESE, PUTHEN[PARAMBIL, MATTAMBALAM, KOTTAYAM. 5. BIJU P.GEORGE, PUTHENPARAMBIL, PUTHUPALLY, KOTTAYAM. 6. BIJU K.PAUL, S/O.K.P.PAUL, PAINADATH HOUSE, IRINGOLE, PERUMBAVOOR. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL R4 BY ADV. SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN R5&R6 BY SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 36291 of 2005(U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE DEED OF PARTNERSHIP DT. 31.3.97 EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT.25.1.2002 ISSUED U/S 17(3) OF THE KERALA GENERAL SALES TAX ACT 1963 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE SALES TAX OFFICER, PONKUNNAM EXT.P3 : TRUE COY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.2.1.2004 IN S.C.393/2000 ON THE FILES OF SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.15.3.2002 ISSUED BY THE SALES TAX OFFICER PONKUNNAM EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.16.9.2002 OF THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ADDL. BENCH KOTTAYAMDT.31.12.2002 EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 13.2.2004 IN T.R.C 11/2003 EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT 9.7.2004 IN WPC 16310/2004 EXT.P9 : TRUE COPYOF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P10 : TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT.23.9.2004 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE NO.8/97-98 DT.1.4.1997 RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// jma K.Vinod Chandran, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.36291 of 2005-U ---------------------------------------- Dated this, the 21st day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the writ petition has become infructuous. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. K.Vinod Chandran, Judge. vku/-