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 MONDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2008 / 8TH MAGHA 1929 WA.No. 133 of 2008 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.20315/2004 Dated 30/07/2007 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- M/S. MANNARKKAD WINES, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, P. KUMARAN. BY ADV. SRI.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. SALES TAX OFFICER, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. VINOD CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, CJ. & K.M. JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WRIT APPEAL No.133 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT H.L.DATTU, CJ, This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.20315 of 2004 dated 30.7.2007. 2. The learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition solely on the ground that the petitioner, if it is aggrieved by Ext.P11 order, it has right of revision before the revisional authority under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act ('KGST Act' for short). Aggrieved by the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge, the petitioner is before us in this writ appeal. 3. Petitioner is an assessee registered under the provisions of the KGST Act. In the writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution petitioner had called in question the orders of penalty passed by the revisional authority in exercise of his power under Section 45AA of the KGST Act for non- payment of the tax within the stipulated period. 4. In our view, if for any reason the petitioner was aggrieved by Ext.P11 order passed by the Sales Tax Officer, it ought to have filed a revision petition as provided under the Act. The remedy so provided, in our view, is an effective and efficacious remedy. By-passing the said remedy, the petitioner could not have approached this court by filing the writ petition inter alia questioning Ext.P11 order passed by the Sales Tax Officer. Keeping these aspects of the matter in view, the learned Single Judge, in our view, has rightly rejected the writ petition and has directed the petitioner to file a revision petition before the revisional authority within a particular time. The order so passed by the learned W.A.133/2008. 2 Single Judge, in our opinion, cannot be faulted by us. Therefore, the writ appeal requires to be rejected, and it is rejected. 5. While rejecting the writ appeal, we grant a month's time to the petitioner to file revision petition, if for any reason it is aggrieved by Ext.P11 oder passed by the Sales Tax Officer. If such a revision petition is filed within the time granted by this court, the revisional authority will consider the same on merits without reference to the period of limitation. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE sb.