IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 8128 of 2009(I) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- SHAILA BABY, PROPRIETRIX, ACHU TRADERS, S.S.COMPLEX, PALLIKULAM ROAD, THRISSUR- 680 001. BY ADVS. SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR, SRI.V.DEVANANDA NARASIMHAM. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, II CIRCLE, THRISSUR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2010, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO.7944/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ------------------------------------ W.P(C) Nos.8128/2009-T & 7944/2010-P ------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T The issue involved in both these cases is rather similar. The grievance projected is as to the clarification issued by the second respondent under Section 94 of the KVAT Act, with reference to the 'rate of tax' payable in respect of the commodity involved; fixing a higher extent of liability. 2. Both the learned counsel for the petitioners submit that there is no other alternative remedy for the petitioners, since the clarification issued by the Commissioner is binding upon the subordinate officers, in view of the mandate under sub Section 5 of Section 94. It is also stated that the petitioners were never parties to the proceedings before the second respondent, which led to the clarification. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the remedy of the petitioners though not parties to the clarification orders passed by the Commissioner is only by way of challenging the same by filing an 'OTA' before this W.P(C) Nos.8128/2009-T & 7944/2010-P 2 Court and that the legal position has been made clear by a Division Bench of this Court as per judgment dated 30.11.2009 in O.T Appeal No.12 of 2008 (to which, I was also a party). 4. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find it fit or proper to entertain the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed; however without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to pursue the matter further, in accordance with law as above. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab W.P(C) Nos.8128/2009-T & 7944/2010-P 3