IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2010 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 8344 of 2009(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- JOSEPH KURIAKOSE, PROPRIETOR, HOTEL ELITE CONTINENTAL, M.C.ROAD, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2010, ALONG WITH W.P(C) No.10091 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 8344 OF 2009 & 10091 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 30th March , 2010 J U D G M E N T W.P.C) No. 8344 of 2009 has been filed chalenging the constitutional validity of Section 30(2) of the KVAT Act which is still to be admitted; whereas W.P. (C) No.10091 of 2010 has been filed challenging Ext.P3 order passed by the first respondent, seeking to realise the amount stated as due from the petitioner. Referring to the mandate under Section 30(2) and other relevant provisions, the case projected in the subsequent Writ Petition is that unless and until the issue is finalised as projected in the former Writ Petition , the respondents are not justified in proceeding with further steps for realisation of the amount stated as above. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the W.P.(C) No. 8344 OF 2009 & 10091 OF 2010 2 constitutional validity of the Section 30 (2) has already been upheld by this Court, vide judgment dated 27.07.2009 in W.P. (C) No. 21777 of 2008 answering the position in favour of the Revenue. 4. In the above circumstances, the contentions raised in both the Writ Petitions are devoid of any merit and no interference is called for. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk