IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2008 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1929 WA.No. 619 of 2008 AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.3680/2008 Dated 31/01/2008 APPELLANT: PETITIONER --------------------- RELIANCE GENERATORS PVT.LTD., "SURIYAS", 78, 5TH CROSS, COLLECTORATE COLONY, AMAINDAKARAI, CHENNAI 600 029. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.LAKSHMANAN SMT.SARITHA DAVID CHUNKATH SMT.SMITHA GEORGE RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. SALES TAX OFFICER, WORKS CONTRACT, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 5. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, WANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU,C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.A. NO. 619 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th March, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.DATTU, C.J. Ext.P11 order passed by the First Appellate Authority in S.T.A.Nos.347 of 2002 and 639 of 2002 dated 25.4.2006, was the subject matter of the writ petition No.3680 of 2008 filed by the petitioner/appellant. Learned single Judge has rejected the petition solely on the ground that the petitioner has an alternate remedy by way of appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned single Judge, petitioner in the writ petition has presented this writ appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that for the assessment year 1995-96, petitioner had preferred appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has remanded the matter to the assessing authority to redo the matter in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, it is stated that no purpose would be served in filing the second appeal against the orders of the First Appellate Authority for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98. Therefore, requests this Court to entertain the writ petition and decide the case on merits. 4. In fact, the First Appellate Authority, while disposing of the appeal filed against the orders of assessment passed for the assessment years 1996- 97 and 1997-98, has remanded the matter to the assessing authority to redo W.A.. NO.619 OF 2008 :: 2 :: the matter keeping in view the orders passed by the Tribunal for the assessment year 1995-96. 5. In our opinion, the remedy of second appeal provided before the Tribunal by the statute against the orders passed by the First Appellate Authority is effective and efficacious remedy. By-passing that remedy, the assessee could not have approached this Court in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. Keeping that aspect of the matter in view, in our opinion, the learned single Judge has rightly rejected the writ petition filed by the petitioner against Ext.P11 order passed by the First Appellate Authority. We do not see any infirmity in the order so passed. Therefore, interference with the said order is not called for. Accordingly, the writ appeal is rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) Chief Justice (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/