IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2010 / 28TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18252 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ST.THOMAS CHURCH, ARANATTUKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS VICAR.REV.FR.ITTICHAN KURISSERY. BY ADV. MR. TONY CHACKO MR. K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, (LUXURY TAX), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, SIVASAKTHI BUILDING, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR-1. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 18252 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 18th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Exts. P3 and P4 notices issued under Section 6 r/w Section 17 A of the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner does not come within the purview of the above enactment. 2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents submits on merits that, the idea and understanding of the petitioner is quite wrong and misconceived. The authority concerned is perfectly justified in proceeding with the steps as proposed under Exts. P3 and P4. It is also brought to notice of this Court that, since the petitioner did not comply with the requirements in Exts.P3 and P4, appropriate penalty has been imposed as per order dated 31.5.2010, besides issuance of notice under Section 17 A of the Kerala Tax on Luxury Act on 8.6.2010, which is still to be answered by the petitioner. 3. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that no interference is called for with regard to Exts. P3 and P4 and if the petitioner is aggrieved in any manner, the petitioner has to challenge the consequential proceedings/orders, if any. Accordingly, interference W.P. (C) No. 18252 of 2010 : 2 : is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed, however without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to challenge the concerned orders and consequential proceedings. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd