IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 18853 of 2004(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SREEKRISHNA CHARITABLE SOCIETY REGN.NO.623/94, VALAYANCHIRANGARA P.O., ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K.N.SREEKUMAR. BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY FINANCE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ADDITIONAL SALES TAX OFFICER-1 II CIRCLE, PERUMBAVOOR. 3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KUNNATHUNADU, PERUMBAVOOR. BY G.P. SRI. MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR (VILLAGE INDUSTRIES) OF THE KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD DATED 3.6.2004 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION SROP 958/2002 DATED 21.11.2002 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION SROP 328 OF 2004 DATED 1.4.2004 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 19.4.2004 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF ATTACHMENT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 19.4.2004 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF ATTACHMENT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 18853 OF 2004 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT W.P.C. is filed challenging Ext.P3 notification giving retrospectivity to Ext.P2 notification for certain commodities and making the notification effective prospectively only for some other commodities. All what the petitioner produced is only a revenue recovery notice proposing to recover arrears of tax under CST Act for 2002-03. Government Pleader submitted that the demand is only at 2% applicable to Khadi and Village Industries Ltd., which the petitioner's unit is. I do not think it is possible for this Court to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner without reference to assessment orders which are not before Court. In fact assessments are still pending. In the circumstances, I direct the second respondent to proceed with assessment and complete the same within a period of three months from now, if not already completed. If petitioner has any grievance against assessment orders petitioner is free to challenge the same and if required, to challenge the notification. Recovery proceedings should be taken only after regular assessments are completed. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) kk Judge 2