IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2009 / 20TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22757 of 2009(L) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ ADITYA GOEL, PROPRIETOR, ADITYA FABRICS, NIDA, KOYYAMARAKKAD, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.V.P.SUKUMAR MR.KURYAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, IIND CIRCLE, PALAKKAD. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES(D) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER ,R.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 22757 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 11th August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The issue involved in the present Writ Petition is whether the fabric of 'Polypropylene Filament Yarn' manufactured and sold by the petitioner is a 'textile fabric' , an exempted commodity or whether it is liable to be treated as 'non-woven fabric' liable to attract tax at the rate of 12.5% as clarified by the second respondent, Commissioner, vide Ext. P6 clarification. 2. True, the second respondent is having the power to issue necessary clarification, as provided under Section 94 of the KVAT Act . It is also true that such clarification is of binding nature, by virtue of the stipulation under Section 94(2) of the Act , which also says that, if there is a dispute between the parties, the same shall be decided only after giving necessary opportunity to both the parties. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P6 clarification has been issued by the second respondent without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and as such, the petitioner has lost his chances to explain the actual facts and figures before the second respondent , which in turn has very much adversely affected the W.P.(C) No. 22757 OF 2009 2 rights and interests of the petitioner and hence is under challenge. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances and also taking note of the fact that Ext. P6 does not reflect that any notice has been served on the petitioner before issuing the clarification, the same is hereby set aside and the second respondent is directed to re- consider the matter after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the sides, before proceeding with the issue. The proceedings, as above, shall be finalised as expeditiously as possible, and any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is made clear that till such orders are passed, all further proceedings pursuant to Exts. P3 to P5 shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk