IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2009 / 22ND ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18023 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- T.I. RAJU, CONTRACTOR, 5/2096 “ASHABHAVAN”, KOTTARAM ROAD, KOZHIKODE BY ADV. MR. S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER I, WORKS CONTRACT, KOZHIKKODE 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEAPRTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) Nos. 18023 of 2009 and 18047 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 13th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The main case put forth by the petitioner in both these cases is against the constitutional validity of Section 17 D of the KGST Act, which has been considered by this Court and answered against the assessee as per the decision rendered by this Court in Viani Paper Mills Vs. Fast Track Team (2008 (1) KLT 511). This being the position, the consequential prayers are not liable to be entertained and the remedy of the petitioners, if any, can only be by challenging the impugned orders availing the statutory remedy. 2. There is yet another case for the petitioner that, the impugned orders Exts. P7 and P8, though stated as passed by a team consisting of 4 members, it has been signed only by one person, which is not in conformity with the statutory requirement. 3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit asserting that, the concerned orders have been passed by a team consisting of 4 members and all of them have subscribed their signature to the original order. Exts.P7 and P8 are only the copies of the orders forwarded to the petitioners under the signature of one of the officers concerned, making it clear that the order actually contained the signature of the all the persons concerned. WP (C) Nos. 18023 of 2009 & 18047 of 2009 : 2 : 4. This being the position, the challenge raised by the petitioners on this count also does not stand at all. In the above circumstances, inference is declined and the Writ Petitions are dismissed. This will be without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to avail the appropriate remedy as available under the statute. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd