IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2011 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 14951 of 2011(T) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- K.SADANANDAN, AMPADIYIL GRANITES, VALLICODE, KOTTAYAM.P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA-689656. BY ADVS. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SRI.PAUL JACOB (P) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PATHANAMTHITTA-689645. 3. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER-II, OFFICE OF THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA-689645. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 14951/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE APPLICATION DATED 05/04/2010. P2: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26/06/2010. P2(a):COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01/07/2010. P3: COPY OF THE NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT DATED 07/07/2010 P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/03/2011. P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05/03/2009 REPORTED IN 2009(2) KLT 787 J & S GRANITES VS. STATE OF KERALA. P6: COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 14/03/2011. P7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16/03/2011. P8: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21/03/2011. P9: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23/03/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.14951 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T In view of pendency of Exts.P7 and P9 representations submitted by the petitioner before the authorities concerned, I need not go into the disputed issue regarding fixation of the rate of compounding fee. The petitioner is seeking a reconsideration of the order permitting payment of tax at the compounded rate, in view of the fact that there was replacement of the machineries and consequent eligibility of the petitioner for getting the compounded rate re-fixed at a different tariff. 2. However, since the authorities concerned has not taken any decision on the basis of Exts.P7 and P9, I am of the view that, the writ petition can be disposed of directing those authorities to consider the same and to take appropriate decision. 3. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 2 and 3 to consider Exts.P7 and P9 2 W.P.(C).No.14951 of 2011 representations and to take appropriate decisions there of, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/