IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2009 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WA.No. 2873 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.33649/2009 Dated 24/11/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------ M/S. DOORCAS MARKET MAKERS (PVT.) LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, "SREE PADMAM", P.V.SREEDHARAN ROAD, KUMBALAM POST, COCHIN, REP. BY ITS MANAGER (ACCOUNTS) MR.S.MARIA JOSEPH FERNANDEZ. BY SR. ADV. SRI.V.RAMACHANDRAN ADV. SMT.K.LATHA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), SPECIAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR. 3. TEAM OF INSPECTORS, C/O. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR. 4. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.2873 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 18th day of December, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard Senior counsel Sri.V.Ramachandran appearing for the appellant and the Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. The appellant is a manufacturer of soap, which claimed concessional rate of tax on the ground that soap manufactured and sold is handmade soap. When the question came up before us in revision, the Division Bench felt that the question whether soap is handmade or machine made is to be considered with reference to the factual position which will be revealed only if an inspection is conducted in the factory where soap is made. In order to avoid controversy, this court directed inspection to be carried out by a committee to be appointed by the Commissioner. Based on the direction issued by this court, the committee appointed by the Commissioner conducted inspection and prepared a report. Based on the report, the Assessing Officer has issued pre-assessment notice, against which W.P.(C) is filed 2 challenging basically the findings in the report. The learned Single Judge held that if the appellant has any objection against the factual findings in the report, it is for the appellant to raise the objections in reply to pre-assessment notice for the Assessing Officer to consider the same. The learned Single Judge did not, therefore, consider appellant's objection against the report and W.P.(C) was disposed of leaving freedom to the appellant to raise objection against the findings in the report before the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment. It is against this judgment the appellant has filed this appeal. 3. After hearing both sides, we do not find any justification for this court to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge because appellant cannot be permitted to continue another round of litigation against the report which is nothing but data gathered by a committee after inspection of appellant's factory. If findings are incorrect, it is for the appellant to raise objection and if any clarification is required from the committee members, the Assessing Officer may call for the same. On the reply to pre-assessment notice, the Assessing Officer will necessarily hear the appellant and allow 3 them to adduce evidence to substantiate their case. Writ Appeal is consequently dismissed but with the above observations. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms