IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 9490 of 2011(I) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M/S.MEDICAL SENSORS INDIA PVT. LTD. NO:1, "SRI BALAJI", HBCS LAYOUT, NEAR VIDHYAPEETA, BSK III STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 085, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR D.G. SUBRAMANYAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI, SRI.P.V. LONACHAN. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, TRANSPORT COMMISSIONERATE, TRANS TOWERS, TRIVANDRUM, KERALA, 691 001. 2. THE TRANSPORT SECRETARY, STATE OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-691 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.JOSEPH GEORGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 9490 of 2011(I) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 COPY OF THE SUPPLY ORDER DATED 28/03/2009. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 28/03/2009. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE AMENDED SUPPLY ORDER DATED 28/03/2009. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 07/01/2010. EXT.P5 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 28/01/2010. EXT.P6 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 05/04/2010. EXT.P7 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 18/05/2010 FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22/09/2010. EXT.P9 COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P10 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 04/01/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 9490 of 2011 I ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 18th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Government Pleader takes notice for the second respondent. 2. According to the petitioner, pursuant to a contract awarded to them, they supplied Laser Based Speed Radars with Colour Printers to the respondents. It is stated that in the offer made by them, it was eventually accepted that the price was exclusive of tax. However, when final settlement was made, their offer was treated as if it was inclusive of tax. Therefore, deduction was made from the amounts due. This led the petitioner making Ext.P8 representation to the second respondent for release of the full amount. The representation is not considered so far and that made the petitioner to file this writ petition, seeking disbursement of an amount of `9,55,000/- required towards tax. 3. As at present, the claim of the petitioner is still not W.P.(C) No.9490/2011 : 2 : considered by the second respondent. Therefore, at this stage, the only order required is that the second respondent will consider Ext.P8 representation and pass orders thereon. This, the second respondent shall do with notice to the petitioner and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/18/11 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge