IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20575 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, COCHIN REGIONAL OFFICE, KARSHAKA ROAD, ERNAKULAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER - JOSEPH SAMUEL. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 2. SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, M.G.ROAD BRANCH, ERNAKULAM. 4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER Mr.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 20575 OF 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the course and procedure followed by the the Appellate Authority in entertaining the appeal preferred by the petitioner against Ext.P1 assessment conducted by the Fast Track Team under Section 17(D), whereby, notwithstanding the merits projected, the petitioner has been compelled to satisfy the entire tax liability so as to avail the statutory remedy conferred by way of appeal. Learned counsel for the the petitioner submits that, by virtue of the said stipulation, the remedy by way of appeal conferred under the statute has been virtually rendered meaningless and hence that the stipulation under Section 17D(5) to satisfy the tax liability for availing the appellate remedy is rather oppressive in nature. It is in the said circumstance, the petitioner has chosen to challenge the virus of statutory prescription as well. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits that no exception can be made in view of the law already declared by the Division Bench of this Court in Viani Papers Vs. Fast Track Team in [2008 (2) KLT 511] whereby the validity of the provision has been upheld. WPC NO.20575/2009 2 It is also relevant to note that the Apex Court has recently considered the issue as to the liability to pay the tax at the time of filing the appeal in Ravi Gupta's Case reported in [2009 (22) VST 529 SC] which bars the way of the petitioner. 3. In the said circumstance, the legal position stands already answered against the petitioner and as such, no interference is called for. The Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc