IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2011 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 32395 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S. ,MARY MATHA RICE & OIL MILLS, ALAGAPPA NAGAR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER SRI.K.O.PAUL. BY ADV. SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN SMT.G.DEEPA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER-II, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K. RAMESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 32395 of 2010(Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.10.1997 OF THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDL.BENCH, PALAKKAD EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6.9.2010 ADDRESSED TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE jma C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 32395 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a registered partnership firm. The claim of the petitioner is that the firm is eligible and entitled to get full exemption from payment of tax in terms of Government Notification No. G.O.(P) No.194/97ID dated 11.4.1979. However, the said claim of the petitioner was declined. Feeling aggrieved by the assessment orders for the years 1980-81 to 1985-86 appeals were preferred before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under Section 34 of the KGST Act. On its dismissal Second Appeals were filed under Section 39 of the KGST Act before the first respondent - the Sales tax Appellate Tribunal. Ext.P1 is the order of the appellate tribunal. As per Ext.P1 the appeals preferred by the petitioner were allowed and the cases were remitted back to the assessing authority for denovo disposal, in accordance with law, and also in view of the principles laid down by this Court in TRC No.18 to 22 of 1991 dated 14.6.1991. This writ petition has been filed on being aggrieved by the inordinate WPC.32395/2010 : 2 : delay in the matter of passing fresh orders by the assessing officer in terms of Ext.P1. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. 3. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit in this writ petition. Missing of records is the reason assigned for the delay in the matter of fresh disposal in terms of Ext.P1. In the counter affidavit it is stated that, without prejudice to the legal contentions raised therein, the first respondent is not in a position to say anything on merits of the case in the absence of assessment records. In view of the admission on the part of the first respondent that he had not seen the assessment records, I am at a loss to understand as to how he could raise the other contentions in the counter affidavit. In view of the admission in the counter affidavit that he had no seen the assessment records, I am not inclined to consider any of the other contentions stated in the counter affidavit. That apart, in the light of Ext.P1 the assessment officer cannot be heard to contend that he got no obligation to consider and pass appropriate orders in terms of the directions in Ext.P1. He is, in fact, bound by the directions in WPC.32395/2010 : 3 : Ext.P1. In the said circumstances, without making any observation as to the merits of the rival contentions, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to pass appropriate orders afresh, in implementation of Ext.P1 order of the tribunal. This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge