IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2010 / 22TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 942 of 2010(P) ------------------------ PETITIONER: --------------- K.V.JOHNY, PROPRIETOR, M/S.JWALA DIAMONDS, TC NO.XI/479(1), AMBADY LANE, VELIYANNUR, THRISSUR-21. BY ADV. SRI.TOMSON T.EMMANUEL RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, 4TH CIRCLE, THRISSUR. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P(C) No. 942 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 12th January , 2010 J U D G M E N T Ext. P8 notice issued by the first respondent is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The essential facts revealed from the proceedings show that the petitioner was given permission to pay the tax under section 8(f)(i) of the KVAT Act for the year 2008-09 as per the order dated 30.06.2008. Subsequently vide order dated 24.02.2009 passed by the second respondent, the same was cancelled, aggrieved of which, the petitioner has filed a revision petition before the third respondent , who, after considering the facts and figures remitted the matter to the assessing authority for fresh consideration as per Ext. P4 order dated 08.07.2009. It was in the course of such exercise that the first respondent issued Ext. P8 notice seeking for his explanation. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has also preferred Ext. P9 statement of objections in response to Ext.P8 and that the matter is still pending . It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the matter is squarely covered by the decision reported in (2009) 17 KTR 613(Ker.) W.P(C) No. 942 OF 2010 2 [ Johnson & Johnson vs. Asst. Commissioner(Assmt.) ]. 4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the apprehension expressed by the petitioner is rather premature and that the petitioner is at liberty to raise all these contentions, factual as well as legal, before the first respondent in the course of finalisation of the proceedings including the dictum cited supra. In the above facts and circumstances, the matter is disposed o,f directing the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P9, in accordance with law, of course with regard to the law declared by the Division Bench in the decision cited supra and the proceedings shall be finalised after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk