IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18936 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- A.KALIMUTHU, NITHYAGOMATHI POWER CONTROLS, KUNISSERY, THANNERPANDAL, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.T.G.ABHILASH RESPONDENT: --------------- THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WC), COMMERCIAL TAXEX, PALAKKAD. BY S R.GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 18936 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 1st July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: “ a) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing Ext. P4 letter of the respondent, b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing the respondent to allow Ext. P2 application of the petitioner permitting to pay tax at compounded rate in respect of the work awarded under Ext. P1 work order; and c) pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case. “ 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who is a work contractor and an assessee under the W.P.(C) No. 18936 OF 2010 2 VAT Act under the files of the respondents, was awarded with certain work which is stated as completed only on 18.06.2009. It is the case of the petitioner that though he sought to avail the benefit of compounding as borne by Ext. P2 application dated 14.07.2009, nothing was heard on it which made the petitioner to file Ext..P3 application/reminder dated 31.05.2010, wherein reference was made to second proviso to Rule 11(1) of the Act , seeking to consider the said application and to extend the benefit thereunder . It is at that point of time, the respondent chose to act upon Ext.P2 application and the same was rejected as per order dated 10.06.2010, stating that the application for 'Annual compounding' could not be accepted, as it was beyond time. The petitioner is challenging the correctness of the same and the course pursued by the respondents while dealing with the applications filed for the benefit of compounding as provided under Rule 11(1), stating that the matter is liable to be treated as 'workwise compounding' instead of 'annual compounding'. 3. The learned Government Pleader submits that the W.P.(C) No. 18936 OF 2010 3 contents of Ext.P2 application preferred by the petitioner itself will reveal that the relief sought for by the petitioner was for 'annual compounding' and by virtue of the stipulation in Circular No.5/09 the extended time to file necessary applicaiton in this regard was 'till 30.06.2009' wheareas the application is dated 14.07.2009, no benefit for having 'annual compounding' can be extended to the petitioner by virtue of specific mandate under the Circular. This being the position, the rejection of Ext.P4 is very much in conformity with the relevant provisions and is stated as not assailable. 4. With regard to the case put forth in Ext. P3, the learned Government Pledaer submits that, as per the rule position referred to in Ext.P3 application, in respect of 'workwise compounding', it should have have been submitted within 30 days from the date of conclusion of work. In the instant case , the learned Governemnt Pleader submits that the work ought to have been completed, as borne by Ext.P1, much earlier. Even otherwise since the work is admittedly stated as completed on 18.06.2009, Ext.P2 application is belated and further it does not W.P.(C) No. 18936 OF 2010 4 contain the particulars regarding the work and the other requirements, to be furnished along with the application as required under the rule. As such, the petitioner is not entitled to be heard to say that Ext.P2 application ought to have been considered for extending the benefit under rule 11 (1) , which request is put forth for the first time only by filing Ext.P3 dated 31.05.2010 and hence is beyond the statutory limit. This Court finds considerable force in the said submission. There is no merit in the Writ Petition . None of the grounds raised in the Writ Petition in support of the contention could be held as tenable. Interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk