IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2010 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 12119 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S. EDAYOOR CRUSHER METAL, EDAYOOR P.O., VALANCHERY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING PARTNER, KHALID PULLAT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.THANU PILLAI SRI.K.P.JOY RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE AGRICULTURE INCOME TAX & COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, MANJERI AT KOTTAKKAL. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 12119 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 7th April , 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner seeks for permission to remit the compounded tax at the rate of Rs. 25000/- per annum for the stone crusher unit, as provided under the Kerala Finance Bill, 2009. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits that it was only a 'proposal' and hence is not liable to be acted upon. Subsequently, Finance Act, 2009 came into effect, whereby the manner of assessment of tax has been clearly dealt with, specifying the parameters . Since the proposal did not materialise the petitioner cannot have any vested right based on it particularly in view of the 'Act' brought in subsequently, clearly specifying the actual facts and figures . 3. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court earlier in W.P.(C) 32866 of 2009, after considering the rival submissions, this Court passed the final verdict dated 05.02.2010, whereby similar contentions, as put forth from the part of the W.P.(C) No. 12119 OF 2010 2 petitioners were turned down and the Writ Petition was dismissed. The aggrieved party preferred W.A.No.284 of 2010, which also happened to be dismissed as per the verdict passed on 19.02.2010 and thus, the issue has become final. This being the position, the petitioner is not entitled for any benefit based on the said provisions. Interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed. However with regard to the alternate prayer, to allow the petitioner to pay the tax on 'turnover basis', the petitioner is left at liberty to approach the concerned authorities for appropriate reliefs, on which event, such application shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed by the concerned authority, as expeditiously as possible. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner might be permitted to clear the outstanding liability by way of reasonable installments, in view of the difficulties expressed to raise the funds in lump sum. Considering the persuasive submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to clear the liability by way of three equal monthly installments, the first of which shall be effected on or before 30.04.2010, to be followed by similar installments to be effected on or before the 30th of the succeeding months. Subject to the above, all W.P.(C) No. 12119 OF 2010 3 recovery proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that if any default is committed in effecting the installments as above, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realization of the entire outstanding liability in a lump sum, from the stage where it stands now. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk