IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2009 / 12TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18688 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- KAIRALY WELFARE AND CHARITABLE WOMENS SOCIETY, MANIKKINAR P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOVELY SALIM BY ADV. SRI.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. APPELLATE ASST.COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No.18688 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 3rd July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The assessment order in respect of the assessment year 2003-04 was challenged by the petitioner by filing the appeal -STA No.1321 of 2006 before the second respondent. However, the same happened to be rejected for non-payment of the 'court fee' towards the Kerala Legal Benefit Fund, as borne by Ext. P3, which has been subjected to challenge in the present Writ Petition. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that non-payment of requisite court fee was never wilful, but only due to an inadvertent omission. There is also a case for the petitioner that the defect noted in this regard was not properly communicated to the petitioner and that no sufficient opportunity was obtained for curing the same. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who W.P.(C) No.18688 OF 2009 2 submits that absolutely no fault can be put on the shoulders of the appellate authority, particularly in view of the fact that the appeal proceedings were presented through the representative of the petitioner herein and that the default, omission or lapse, if at all, can only be on the part of the said representative, for whose acts and deeds, none other than the petitioner can be held as liable . 4. However, this Court does not find it necessary to conduct a hair split analysis as to the actual turn of events, particularly in view of the submission made from the part of the petitioner that he is ready and willing to remit the requisite court fee and that the matter might be ordered to be considered on merits especially in view of the stakes involved. 5. After considering the facts and circumstances, Ext. P3 impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is directed to remit the requisite court fee within ten days. On such an event, the appeal preferred by the petitioner shall be considered afresh and decided on merits, in accordance with law, of course, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This shall be finalised W.P.(C) No.18688 OF 2009 3 as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk