IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2009 / 13TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 34349 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.SURENDRAN, I.M.F.L DEALER, CHEMANKONATHU VEEDU, VELLANADU, NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 34349 OF 2008 L ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a registered dealer of IMFL and the proprietor of two bar attached hotels. On 4.4.2008, the petitioner filed an application for payment of turnover tax for the year 2008- 09 at the compounded rate on the turnover of IMFL at 140% of purchase value of such liquor in terms of section 7(a) of the KGST Act, 1963, as amended by section 2 of the Kerala Finance Act, 2006. Petitioner applied for permission in respect of two hotels. Vide Exts.P3 and P4, permission is granted invoking section 7(b). The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 objection. Without properly considering the same, Exts.P6 and P7 orders are passed, is the complaint of the petitioner. Thereafter, Exts.P6 and P7 were followed by Exts.P8 and P9 provisional monthly demand. Then, the petitioner filed Ext.P10 representation. Again, it is stated that without properly considering the same, Ext.P11 order is passed. The petitioner challenges Exts.P3, P4, P6, P7 and P11. A prayer is sought to permit the petitioner to pay turnover tax for the WPC.34349/08 : 2 : turnover of IMFL at 140% of purchase value of such liquor at the compounded rate under section 7(a). Counter affidavit is filed. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. Learned government pleader points out that a Division Bench of this Court has spoken directly against the contention of the petitioner by way of its decision in Hotel Asoka Vs. commercial Tax Officer [2007 (4) KLT 718]. Having perused the judgment, it appears that the learned Government Pleader is correct as it appears to be the position taken that the words 'whichever is higher' will not be limited only to Clause (b). It will apply to Clauses (a) and (b). In the light of this, I feel there is no merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks