IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 8433 of 2010(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.D. GEORGE, MG. PARTNER, M/S. APPOLO JEWELLERS, CENTRAL JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASST. COMMISSIONER, KVAT, SPECIAL CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, KOTTAYAM. 2. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BHAVAN.P.O, TRIVANDRUM 3. SECRETARY TO TAXES, FINANCE MINISTRY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.8433 of 2010-D ---------------------------- Dated this 17th the day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of certiorari or such other orders permitting the petitioner to withdraw the option u/s.8(f)(i) and allow to pay tax u/s 6(1) of the KVAT Act-03 for 09-10. ii) Issue writ of mandamus or such other writ or direction to the 3rd respondent to issue orders based on Ext.P9 in the matter. iii) Issue such other writ or direction or order as this Hon. Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case. iv) issue writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P5 and Ext.P6.” 2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the Writ Petition is not maintainable in view of the fact, once the petitioner has sought to compound the matter under the relevant provisions of law, it is not proper to withdraw the same. Reliance is placed on the decision reported in Raju Jacob V. Sales Tax Officer (2006(1) KLT 788) 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is an obvious provision as discernible from Ext.P9 budget W.P(C) No.8433 of 2010-D 2 speech, whereby certain benefits were declared as available to the persons like the petitioner and that the cause of action projected by the petitioner very much comes within the purview of Ext.P9. It is also stated that Ext.P7 petition has been filed in this regard, before the concerned Minister, which is stated as forwarded to the second respondent, as borne by Ext.P8. Considering the facts and circumstances, the second respondent is directed to consider Ext.P7, which is stated as pending in accordance with law, also with reference to Ext.P9 and other relevant proceedings, if any. Final orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is also made clear that petitioner shall also given an opportunity of hearing before finalisation of the proceedings as above. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab