IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2009 / 9TH MAGHA 1930 WA.No. 996 of 2006() -------------------- {IN WPC.12891/2006 OF THIS COURT} .................... APPELLANT(S)PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------- A. SURENDRAN, PROPRIETOR, M/S. SURENDRA MODERN RICE MILL, PAYYALORE ROAD, KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN SMT.C.K.SHERIN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S)RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. 2. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, II, III CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY, Ag.C.J. & V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.A.No.996 of 2006 ------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT Koshy, Ag.C.J. Notice was issued by the 1st respondent under Section 35 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, proposing a revision under Section 5 A of the Act, on the turn over of paddy for the year 2000-01. 2. It is submitted that the appellant has got a very good case, in view of the decision in Peekay Re- Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner and another {2007(4) SCC 30}. 3. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition only because what was challenged was only Ext.P3 notice. The appellant can raise all his contentions before the statutory authority, including the decision of the Supreme Court cited above, before the notice is finalised. The writ appeal is dismissed, with the above observation. Sd/- (J.B. KOSHY) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge