IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2010 / 16TH ASWINA 1932 RP.No. 886 of 2010(P) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.16546/2010 Dated 02/06/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER: PETITIONER IN THE WPC NO.16546/2010 --------------------------------------------------------- M/S. MOON TIMBER SUPPLIES, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER C.M.MUJEEB, PUTHENKUDY BUILDINGS, ALLAPRA P.O., PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. MR. K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT IN THE WPC NO.16546/2010 -------------------------------------------------- COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, IIND CIRCLE, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN-683 542. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.P. PRADEEP THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ R.P. No. 886 Of 2010 IN W.P (C) No. 16546 Of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 8th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT This Review Petition has been filed by the petitioner in the Writ Petition as aggrieved of the observation in paragraph 4 of the Judgment that the petitioner does not have any challenge as to the merits involved.. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner was made to rush to this Court challenging Ext. P3 because of the coercive proceedings, since there was no other alternative. It was in the said circumstance, that the verdict was passed by this Court on 2.6.2010 holding that the time stipulated as '24 hours' to satisfy the amount would stand extended by '10 days', however observing that the only relief pressed for was for some breathing time to clear the liability. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. The learned counsel petitioner submits that submits that the submission made before this Court was only due to an inadvertent mistake in projecting the cause of action. The learned counsel submits that, the submission made was more with reference to the factum of amendment effected to the 'second proviso' to Section 12 (1) of the KVAT Act, as per the Finance Bill, 2010. It is also stated that, the petitioner could not satisfy R.P. No. 886 of 2010 2 the liability within the specified time, as directed by this Court in the above Writ Petition and that the petitioner has sought to file appeal against the Annexure A; which however is not being entertained due to the observation made in the judgment to the effect that the petitioner does have any challenge with regard to the merits of the case. 5. The learned Government Pleader submits that, the tax demanded as per Ext. P3 is only at the rate of 4 % though the initial proposal was at the rate 12.5 %. But, then there is an another case for the review petitioner that he is also dealing with 'timber' and not exclusively plywood, packing case and veneers revealed from Ext. P1 Certificate of Registration, which could not have been ignored by the concerned authority and hence needs detailed consideration. 6. Taking note of the rival submissions, this Court does not find it necessary to go into the merits of the case, more so when there is 'no error apparent on the face of the records'. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is free to pursue any other appropriate remedy, if the petitioner is entitled for the same, in accordance with law. The Review Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd