IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2011 / 16TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 446 of 2011(E) ------------------------ PETITIONERS: -------------------- M/S.NATIONAL PAINT INDUSTRIES, THANKALAM, KOTHAMANGALAM, REPRESENTED BY ABRAHAM ALEX, (PARTNER) ERANICKAL HOUSE, POTHANICAUD P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.SUBHAKARAN SRI.P.P.VARUGHESE SRI.M.T.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERRY-682 002. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691. 3. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.446 of 2011-E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6th January, 2011. J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P5 and P6 notices issued by the first respondent proposing to revise the assessment completed with respect to the years 2002-'03 and 2003-'04, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 35(1) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (KGST Act). 2. On a perusal of Exts.P5 and P6 it is evident that the revision was proposed on the basis that during an inspection conducted by the Police authorities at the place of business of the petitioner, during the year 2002-'03, certain unaccounted stocks was defected, and it is revealed that the turnover related to the unaccounted stock had escaped assessment. 3. I am of the view that challenge against Exts.P5 and P6 is highly premature. It is for the petitioner to file WP(C).No.446 of 2011-E. 2 objections against the proposal, raising all contentions, including lack of jurisdiction if any, regarding search and seizure and also with respect to unsustainability of the proposal for the year 2002-'03 on the basis that a re- opening is not permissible with respect to that year since the search was conducted during the year 2003-'04. If the petitioner has got any case that the first respondent was prevented from exercising powers vested under Sec.35 of the Act, such contention can also be raised while submitting objections to Exts.P5 and P6. With respect to the apprehension of the petitioner that, even if any objection is filed the same will not be considered by the authority concerned. I find no basis for such an apprehension. However, it is stated that the petitioner had already submitted objections to the proposals. 4. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to pursue all the contentions before the first respondent. WP(C).No.446 of 2011-E. 3 Needless to say that the first respondent shall consider all objections raised by the petitioner, including the contentions with respect to lack of jurisdiction and shall also abide by the mandatory procedures contemplated under the Statute and also the principles of natural justice, while finalising the proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, (Judge) Kvs/-