IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2009 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30111 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- OIL PALM INDIA LIMITED,XIII-354, OLD STAR THEATRE ROAD,P.B.NO.1715, KOTTAYAM SOUTH P.O.,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.BENNY P. THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON SRI.V.J.ANAND RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (KGST), COMMERCIAL TAXES (SPECIAL CIRCLE), KOTTAYAM. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOTTAYAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.30111 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4 order passed by the 3rd respondent appellate authority, on an appeal filed against Ext.P1 order of assessment. It is the case of the petitioner that when the appeal was posted for hearing the autorised representative of the petitioner appeared and argued that matter and thereafter argument notes was submitted before the appellate authority. But the 3rd respondent had dismissed the appeal without considering the case on merits observing that the petitioner had failed to make payment of the amounts due to the Kerala Legal Benefit Fund. Hence the petitioner is complaining about non-consideration of appeal in a proper manner. 2. On a perusal of Ext.P4 it is revealed that the authorised representative of the appellant appeared at the time of hearing. But the appeal is dismissed observing that the appellant has not produced any evidence in support of the claim. Further it is observed that the required stamp paper under the KLBF scheme has not been furnished. W.P.(C).30111/09-H 2 3. Contention of the petitioner is that neither the petitioner nor the authorised representative was ever put to notice about any deficiency/defect with respect to payment of amounts due to the KLBF. Petitioner further asserts that the argument note has already been filed as evidenced by Ext.P2, which is seen acknowledged in the Local Delivery Book as evidenced by Ext.P3. But the contentions herein were not adverted to by the appellate authority. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner had already filed second appeal against Ext.P4 before the 4th respondent Tribunal. Therefore I am of the opinion that interest of justice will be served on issuing direction to the appellate Tribunal to consider the appeal on its merits. 4. In the result the writ petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent Tribunal to consider and pass orders on the appeal, if any filed against Ext.P4 order, on its merits, notwithstanding the fact that the 3rd respondent had dismissed the appeal on technicalities. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb