IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2008 / 18TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 6133 of 2003(E) ---------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ V.S.JEEVAKUMAR, S/O. LATE SUKUMARAN V.G. PROPRIETOR, AGRO FOOD AND SPICES, INDUSTRIAL AREA ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM, KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. ADDITIONAL SALES TAX OFFICER-I, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, ANGAMALY 2. DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR SALES TAX EXEMPTION, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAX DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY SHRI.K.P.PRADEEP, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.NO. 6133/2003 ORDER ON CMP NO. 10833/2003 IN O.P.NO. 6133/2003. DISMISSED. 08/01/2008 SD/- (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 19/03/1999. P2 : COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 24/06/2002. P3 : COPY OF NOTICE NO.24161444/99-2000 DATED 28/01/2000 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. P4 : COPY OF REPLY FILED BY PETITIONER TO EXT.P3. P5 : COPY OF NOTICE NO.24161644/99-2000 DATED 26/08/2002 ISSUED BY R1. P6 : COPY OF REPLY FILED BY PETITIONER TO EXT.P5 DATED 22/10/2002. P7 : COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER DATED 30/10/2002. P8 : COPY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 19(1) NO.24161444/99-2000 DATED 27/01/2003 ISSUED BY R1 TO PETITIONER. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------- O.P. No. 6133 of 2003 ------------------------- Dated, this the 8th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Notification under challenge is SRO 295/98, the validity of which is upheld vide judgment of this Court in M/s. Sahib Rubber Industries Vs. State of Kerala and others, reported in 14 KTR 184. Therefore, challenge against the validity of notification is rejected. In fact, even though notification was challenged, it is reported that petitioner paid compounding fee and availed benefit of exemption earlier declined. In the circumstances, petitioner cannot have any further grievance. However, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner contended that compounding was done under duress and under protest. Even though petitioner has challenged the compounding made and the fee remitted, neither the application filed for compounding nor the order thereof is produced in this Court. Therefore, I do not want to examine the legality and the propriety of the compounding. Petitioner is free to challenge the same before statutory authorities. If petitioner applies for getting copies of the application for compounding and order thereof, concerned authority should issue the same to petitioner. It is up to petitioner to challenge those in separate proceedings. This original petition is closed, as I find no further grievance to the petitioner. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) jg