IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2009 / 22ND ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 19407 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- MADONA HEALTH CARE, ANGAMALY. (REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING PARTNER DR.THOMAS PAUL). BY ADV. MR. VIJAYAN. K.U. MR. K.N.SREEKUMARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB) (MATTANCHERRY), O/O THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (INT.) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 19407 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 13th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The issue in the present Writ Petition is, whether the petitioner hospital is having liability to take out the registration and pay any tax under the KVAT Act, 2003. This issue was actually considered by this Court and decided against the assessee as per the decision rendered by this Court in PRS Hospital Vs. State of Kerala (2003 (1) KLT 633). The impugned order has been passed by the department authority, placing reliance on the said decision and also taking note of the subsequent events. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the decision rendered by this Court requires reconsideration, particularly in view of the fact that the Apex Court has made some observations to hold that inference arrived at by this Court in PRS Hospital's case is not correct or sustainable. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents brought to notice of this Court that, the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge in PRS Hospital's case was subjected to challenge in the Writ Appeal, where also interference was declined, whereupon the assessee had taken up matter to the Supreme Court. WP (C) No. 19407 of 2009 : 2 : After considering the facts and figures, interference was declined by the Apex Court as well, in the concerned SLP (SLP (Civil) No. 15110 of 2004). The sequence of events as above has been specifically taken note of by the departmental authorities while passing Ext.P3 order. 3. In the above facts and circumstances, the issue is no more open to be considered by this Court. Interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd