IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2009 / 31ST ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 20369 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- CRAFT POLYMERS, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER GEETHA N., CHERUSSERY, VALLACHIRA VILLAGE, P.O.THAIKATTUSSERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. M.K.DILEEP KUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SALES TAX OFFICER, II CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 20369 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 22nd day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court, challenging Ext.P6 order passed by the second respondent, which compels the petitioner to remit differential tax to an extent of 8.5 % in so far as the petitioner had already remitted tax only at the rate of 4 % in respect of the particular commodity, which allegedly would attract the tax at the rate 12.5 %. 2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that, the actual rate of tax as provided under schedule in respect of the particular commodity is 12.5 % and this is made clear in SRO 82 of 2006 as well. It is very much relevant to note that, the Circular was issued much prior to the concerned assessment year 2007 - 2008. This being the position, there is absolutely no merit in the contentions taken by the petitioner that he was not aware of the actual facts and figures and the liability to have collected tax at the stipulated rate. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the return submitted by the petitioner with respect to the period in question had already been accepted and acted upon by the concerned departmental authorities. However, Ext.P1 is an appealable order and the petitioner is very much entitled to avail the statutory remedy. As WP (C) No. 20369 of 2009 : 2 : such, this Court does not find any reason to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction invoking the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. In the above circumstances, interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy. In order to enable the petitioner to pursue the same, the coercive steps, stated as being pursued against the petitioner, shall be kept in abeyance, for a period of two weeks. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd