IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1ST ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 19638 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S INDIA FOOD EXPORTS, PALMS DALE, MUNDAKKAL WEST, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY G.SATHEESH NAIR, MANAGING PARTNER. BY ADV. SRI.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. ASST. COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER SPECIAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, AUDIT ASSESSMENT, KOLLAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV.SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 19638 OF 2008 K ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T Ext.P3 is an assessment order which is impugned before this court passed under the CST Act. The principal complaint of the petitioner is that the assessment is primarily based on the data collected from the website www.tinxsys.com. The website is one hosted by the Empowered Committee on VAT. The complaint of the petitioner is that the said website states that the information therein are not accurate or suitable for any purpose. Case of the petitioner is that the transactions were covered by valid F- Forms and C-Forms but placing reliance on the contents of the website, the petitioner has been denied the benefit due to the petitioner. A counter affidavit has been filed wherein it is stated, inter alia, that there is no evidence on record to show that the data in the system is a validated one and so going by the disclaimer and abstract data available in the system, it WPC.19638/08 : 2 : appears that the information available in the “TINXSYS” is not by ipso facto sufficient to proceed against a dealer. It is also stated that though reasonable opportunity has been granted to the petitioner, the petitioner failed to submit the relevant documentary evidence within the time limit. The petitioner submits that the petitioner has submitted the entire F-Forms for the turnover of Rs.4,38,94,220/-. In such circumstances, I feel that the petitioner may approach the authority for rectification. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of leaving open the contentions of the petitioner and directing that if the petitioner moves seeking rectification of the order within two weeks from today before the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent will consider and take a decision on the same in accordance with law, within six weeks thereof, with an opportunity for hearing to the petitioner also. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks