IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2011 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6780 of 2011(S) ------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- LATHA K, ADVOCATE, LEGIST LAW CHAMBER, CHANGAMPUZHA SAMADHY ROAD, NEAR GANAPATHY TEMPLE, EDAPPALLY, COCHIN 682 024. BY ADV. SMT.K.LATHA (PARTY-IN-PERSON) RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM -1. 2. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 395 001. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM 682 019. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. K.P. PRADEEP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 6780 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. The writ petition is filed with the prayer as follows: “(i) To issue a writ of mandamus or direction or any other appropriate order or direction to the respondents to modify the website www.keralataxes.gov.in in such a manner to enable the assessees to revise return in accordance with law as per Rule 22(4A) of KVAT Rules 2005, as per Section 42(2) of KVAT Act, 2003 and as per Rule 10 (b) of KVAT Rules within the prescribed time therein and direction to respondents to extent the last date for filing audit report along with revised returns on 28th February, 2011 for a further period of one month after such modification of the above website. (ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or direction or any other appropriate order or direction to the appropriate authorities to modify the website for filing the return in such a way that the assesses are allowed to revise the returns for rectification of mistakes found voluntarily, without intervention of the officers. (iii) To grant such other and further relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and to allow this Original Petition.” 2. The substance of the grievance in the writ petition is that Section 42(2) read with Rule 22(4A) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 enables any dealer to file W.P.(C) No. 6780 of 2011 -:2:- a revised return rectifying the mistake or omission if any, noticed by him subsequent to the filing of the return. Such a rectification is required to be done within two months from the last date of the filing of the return. It appears from the pleadings (though pleadings are not very clear) that the respondents provided a facility making such returns and corrections 'on-line' and a specific Website for the purpose is created. The grievance of the petitioner is that the procedure involved in operating the 'on-line' facility is illegal. The relevant portion of the pleadings is as follows: “This right of the assessee is transparent from the above Rule and Section. But the Website KERALA TAXES.GOV.IN is designed in such a way that the return can be revised only with permission of the assessing authority and Deputy Commissioner and also from the permission of the commissioner's office and that also only within two months. The website for filing revised returns will not be open unless the above permission is granted through a long process of sending an E-mail to the Assessing authority showing the reason for revising the return and on personal explanation of the matter. Then the Deputy Commissioner will sanction on the basis of assessing officers recommendation by E-mail. Thereafter the computer wing will open the websites for submitting the revised return. Thus he right of the dealer to voluntarily revise the return is intervened by various authorities and it becomes a task for more than W.P.(C) No. 6780 of 2011 -:3:- thousands of dealers in the State and affecting their very right to submit revised return which was even guaranteed under the Law. The very right provided under the law was actually obstructed by the executives, which is illegal.” 3. Irrespective of the fact whether the grievance of the petitioner is tenable or otherwise, we are of the opinion that the writ petition is required to be dismissed for the reason that the writ petition is purported to have been filed in public interest and the persons who are likely to be affected by the alleged illegality or inadequacy of law belong to a class who cannot be said to be incapable of ventilating their grievances before this Court. In the circumstances, we do not see any reason to entertain this writ petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb W.P.(C) No. 6780 of 2011 -:4:-