IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6091 of 2008(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- V.R.RATHEESH, PROPRIETOR, NICHOLAS BOTTILE TRADING CO., PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. FAST TRACK TEAM-II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. 2. THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, PALAKKAD. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 6091 OF 2008 A = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st February, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that against Exts. P1 to P4 assessments completed under Section 17D of the KGST Act, Exts. P6 to P9 appeals were filed before the 2nd respondent. Admittedly, the tax found due as per the orders has not been remitted by the petitioner as required under Section 17D (5) of the KGST Act. He was called upon to remit the tax by issuing Exts. P10 and P11 and even thereafter the said amount was not remitted. It is on account of the default thus committed, revenue recovery steps have been initiated by Exts. P12 and P13 and at that stage this writ petition has been filed challenging the assessment orders and also for a direction to the appellate authority to consider the appeals and stay petition without insisting on the pre-deposit of the assessed tax. 2. It is not in dispute that payment of assessed tax is a mandatory condition imposed by the statute and that statutory W.P.(C) No. 6091 OF 2008 -2- provision requiring remittances of the assessed tax is also not under challenge. If that be so, petitioner has to comply with the said statutory prescription. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution should direct consideration of the appeals without insisting on the statutory prescription of remittance of assessed tax. I cannot agree with the submission made by the learned counsel. Though the power under Article 226 is wide, the exercise of this power can only be in accordance with law. In accordance with the relevant law, if the right of appeal is circumscribed by conditions, the appellant has to comply with such conditions. 4. This having not been done, I cannot find fault with Exts. P12 or P13. For the same reason, I do not think that this Court will be justified in requiring the appellate authority to consider the appeals on merits. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-