IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2008 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1929 WA.No. 501 of 2008 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.1739/2008 Dated 19/02/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- G.K. SHIBU, PROPRIETOR, M/S. SOORAJ GLASS & PLYWOODS, CHERUVALLIMUKKU, KIZHUVILAM P.O., ATTINGAL. BY ADV. SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, SALES TAX OFFICE, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MUHAMMED RAFIQ. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, CJ. & K.M. JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WRIT APPEAL No. 501 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT H.L.DATTU, CJ, Petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of Kerala Value Added Tax Act (“the Act” for short). He is engaged in the business of plywood and glass, which are mainly sold to the dealers outside the State as interstate sales. 2. Along with his returns filed for the assessment year in question, the assessee had not furnished certain particulars as required under Rule 22(3) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules (“the Rules” for short). In view of that the respondent authority has refused to issue the delivery notes to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the omissions and commissions said to have been committed by the assessing authority, petitioner was before this court in W.P.(C) 1739 of 2008. The learned Single Judge, after noticing that the petitioner had not complied with the mandatory provisions of the Rules has affirmed the thinking of the assessing authority in not issuing delivery notes. Aggrieved by the orders so passed by the learned Single Judge, the petitioner is before us in this writ appeal. 3. Sri. Premjith Nagendran, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, would submit that henceforth the petitioner shall pay advance tax and also comply with the required particulars as required under sub rule (3) of Rule 22 of the Rules and also comply with the circular/instructions issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in this regard for all his future transactions. 4. Sri. Muhammed Rafiq, learned Government Pleader, on instructions would submit that for the present the respondent at a time will issue five delivery notes to the petitioner for his business activities and the petitioner may be directed to WA. 501/2008. 2 comply with the mandatory provisions of sub rule (3) of Rule 22 of the Rules and other requirements for the purpose of issuing the delivery notes. 5. Sri.Premjith Nagendran, learned counsel for the appellant, has no objection whatsoever to the suggestions made by Sri. Muhammed Rafiq, learned Government Pleader. 6. In view of the above, without going into the other details of the case, this writ appeal is disposed of as under: Order i) The appellant henceforth shall pay advance tax and also comply with the mandatory provisions of sub rule (3) of Rule 22 of the Rules and also the circular/ instructions issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. ii) The respondent shall issue five delivery notes at a time to the petitioner for facilitating him to conduct his business. This order passed by us shall not come in the way of the appellant taking such defence as are available to him, if for any reason the respondent intends to take any action against the petitioner/appellant for the omissions said to have been committed by the petitioner previously. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE sb./DK.