IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 33992 of 2008(V) ----------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. JOSE I. MANGALY, MANAGING DIRECTOR, MANGALY INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, B.O.C. BYE-PASS ROAD, PATTIKKARA, PALAKKAD - 678 014. 2. JOE I.MANGALY, MANAGING PARTNER, MANGALY TIMBERS, B.O.C. BYE-PASS ROAD, PATTIKKARA, PALAKKAD - 678 014. BY ADV. SRI.P.J.MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFICER, KUNDARA 691 501. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), SPECIAL CIRCLE, PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 33992 OF 2008 V -------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners challenge Exts.P3, P4 and P10. Case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows: Petitioners are registered dealers in timber and pet bottles. They have filed returns for the year 2002 - 2003. The assessment was completed by the Assistant Commissioner, Special Circle, Palakkad. The second respondent is the Commercial Tax Officer, Kundara. He issued Exts.P3 and P4 under Section 19C of the KGST Act. According to the petitioners, they have already preferred Exts.P5 and P6 Argument Notes with supporting documents. Petitioners also rely on ext.P7 Judgment rendered in respect of another party. In Ext.P10, there is an examination of Shri B. Madhusoodhanan Pilla who is alleged to have done business with the petitioners and which led to the proposal in Exts.P3 and P4 notices. In Ext.P10, it is stated that after examining the contentions, it was WPC.33992/08 V 2 found that they are not maintainable. According to the petitioners, even though Ext.P7 is not an inter-parties Judgment, it has persuasive effect and in Ext.P7 Judgment, there was a direction to the Officer to consider each objection and that was not done. Learned Government Pleader, however, points out that all that has been done is that as Shri B. Madhusoodanan Pilla, who has in fact issued form 18 declarations is registered with the second respondent and assessment under Section 19C is issued in respect of the alleged business done by the petitioners in conjunction with Shri B. Madhusoodanan Pilla, it was the second respondent who has jurisdiction. It is further pointed out on instructions that the question as to whether there is jurisdiction under Section 19C in the manner, is an open issue and will be decided only after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. In the light of this, I do not think it necessary for me to entertain this Writ Petition. Needless to say, the second respondent will have to apply his mind to each and every objection raised by the petitioners before the second WPC.33992/08 V 3 respondent. It is not necessary for me to pronounce on the issue relating to the jurisdiction of the second respondent. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the ultimate order passed by the second respondent it is for them, if they are so advised, to take appropriate steps against the same. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge