IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3509 of 2010(K) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- ALWAYE SUGAR AGENCY, MARKET ROAD, KAROTHUKUZHI JUNCTION, ALWAYE-683 101, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, A.ABDUL HAMEED. BY ADV. MR.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER, MR.MAHESH V.MENON. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ALUVA. 2. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERRY. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 3509 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging Ext.P3 recovery notice issued at the instance of the respondents, seeking to realize the amounts stated as due under various heads such as sales- tax, surcharge, interest, collection charges, etc. in respect of the year 1997-'98, which, according to the petitioner, is not correct or sustainable. 2. The question involved is whether the commodity dealt with by the petitioner is liable to be taxed at the rate of 8% as an item falling under 'Entry 90' of the First Schedule to the K.G.S.T. Act or whether it will attract tax only at the rate of 4% under Entry 17A of Schedule II of notification SRO 1728 of 1993. The very same issue had come up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court earlier, in S.T.Rev.No.569 of 2004, wherein the question has been answered in favour of the Revenue, as borne by Ext.P1 judgment. It is stated that the petitioner has W.P.(C) No. 3509/2010 2 approached the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal and that the matter is pending before the Apex Court, as borne by Ext.P2. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that no interim stay has been obtained. This being the position, the issue, as on date, stands covered by Ext.P1 judgment and this Court is very much bound by the decision rendered by the Division Bench. 3. Accordingly, this Court finds that there is no merit in this writ petition. Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE mn.