IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2008 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6595 of 2008(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- P.ABOOBACKER, S/O.MOHAMMED, AGED 53 YEARS, PALAKKATHUDY HOUSE, PARAVAKKAL, KADUNGAPURAM P.O., ANGADIPURAM, PROPRIETOR, TOP CHOICE FURNITURE, AND AUTOMOBILES, PERINTHALMANNA. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.1, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, MALAPPURAM, KERALA. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, MALAPPURAM, KERALA. 4. THE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 6595 OF 2008 I ==================== Dated this the 6th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T By Ext.P1, penalty was imposed on the petitioner. Against Ext.P1 order, petitioner filed Ext.P2 appeal and that was disposed of by Ext.P3 order of the 3rd respondent setting aside Ext.P1 and remanding the matter for reconsideration. Still aggrieved, petitioner filed Exts. P4 and P5 revisions before the 4th respondent. It is stated that during the pendency of Exts. P4 and P5, invoking his suo motu revisional power under Section 37, notice was issued by the 4th respondent to cancel Ext.P3 order and restore Ext.P1. Though objections were filed by the petitioner, finally by Ext.P10 order, the 4th respondent cancelled Ext.P3 and restored Ext.P1. Subsequently, the 4th respondent issued Ext.P11 order rejecting Exts. P4 and P5 on the basis that the issue stands concluded by Ext.P10 order. It is challenging Exts.P10 and P11, this writ petition has been filed. WPC 6595/08 :2 : 2. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. In my view, if at all the 4th respondent is entitled to invoke his power under Section 37 of the KGST Act, the 3rd respondent should have heard the petitioner on that while considering Exts.P4 and P5 revisions filed by the petitioner. However, in this case what he has done is that he exercised his suo motu revisional power and that resulted in Ext.P10 order cancelling Ext.P3 and restoring Ext.P1. Thereafter by a separate proceedings, he held Exts. P4 and P5 revisions to be infructuous in view of Ext.P10 order and rejected the revisions by Ext.P11. This is clearly erroneous. 4. Therefore, setting aside Exts.P10 and P11, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the 4th respondent shall reconsider Exts. P4 and P5 and also the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P8 notice under Section 37 of the KGST Act with opportunity to the petitioner to raise all contentions that are available to him. Final WPC 6595/08 :3 : orders shall be passed with opportunity as above, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp