IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33059 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ C.VAIKUNDA SEKHAR, PROPRIETOR, AYYA VAIKUNDA TRADERS, VANDANOOR, PERUMBALUTHOOR PO, MARANALLOOR, THRIUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 126. BY ADVS. DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENT: -------------------- THE COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, OFFICE NEYYATTINKARA, THRIUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.33059 of 2010-F ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T Exts.P2 and P3 notices were issued proposing completion of assessment under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act), against the petitioner, with respect to the years 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively. The assessment was proposed on the basis of an allegation that the petitioner had conceded sales turn over of 'Plastic Mat' and 'Fishing Ropes' for which he is liable to pay tax at the rate of 12.5%. Whereas, the petitioner had remitted tax with respect to 'Plastic Mat' only at 4% and claimed exemption with respect to sale of 'Fishing Ropes'. 2. On receipt of Exts.P2 and P3 notices, the petitioner had submitted Exts.P4 and P5 objections. It is contended that the items sold by the petitioner is not 'Plastic Mat' but it is only 'Recycled Plastic Strips', which is falling under Entry No.118(17) of List A to the Schedule of the KVAT Act. By virtue of Ext.P1 clarification, the W.P(C) No.33059 of 2010-F 2 Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had observed that 'Plastic Mat' is not an item covered under any of the specific entries in the Schedule of KVAT Act and the same is liable to be taxed at the rate of 12.5%. The contention of the petitioner is that the item dealt with by the petitioner is a different commodity. Therefore, the objection need be considered after physical verification of the commodity in question. Since Ext.P1 clarification is binding on the respondent, the petitioner apprehends that there will not be a proper consideration of objections raised with respect to difference in the commodity. 3. I do not find any basis for the apprehension raised by the petitioner. Since the petitioner had already submitted objections to the proposal notices, it is incumbent on the part of the respondent to examine all such contentions before finalising the assessment. Needless to say that, if any dispute is raised with respect to specification of the commodity, the same shall be looked into by the respondent while completing the assessment. The W.P(C) No.33059 of 2010-F 3 assessment shall be completed only after complying with the procedure contemplated under Section 25 of the KVAT Act and with proper adherence to the principles of natural justice. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observations. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab W.P(C) No.33059 of 2010-F 4