IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2008 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 34504 of 2002(G) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.V. SASIDHARAN, FASTNERS INDIA, PERINGANDOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY SR.ADV. SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, WADAKKANCHERY. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, THRISSUR. 3. THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR. 5. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND SALES TAX COLLECTION, THRISSUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI T.C.R. CHAND THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.NO.34504/2002 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR SALES TAX EXEMPTION ON 13/2/1995. EXT.P2 PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT DTD. 19/3/2001 IN OP.NO.9356/2001. EXT.P3 PHOTOCOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.25200657/96-97 DTD. 22/11/2000 OF THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 COVERING LETTER ACCOMPANYING APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 14/2/2001. EXT.P4A PHOTOCOPY OF APPEAL DTD. 14/2/2001. EXT.P5 PHOTOCOPY OF REVISION PETITION PREFERRED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON 17/2/2001. EXT.P6 PHOTOCOPY OF DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT VIDE RR 9 2052/02 DTD. 6/11/2002. EXT.P6A PHOTOCOPY OF DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT VIDE NO.RR 9 2052 DTD. 6/11/2001. EXT.P7 PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO.A5/643/01 DTD. 21/8/2006 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P8 PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER NO.A5/643/2001[2] DTD. 7/8/2006 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. P.R.RAMAN, J. --------------------------- O.P.No.34504 OF 2002 ---------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. He is running a Small Scale Industrial Unit manufacturing wood screws under the Rehabilitation Scheme. He seeks to quash Ext.P3 order of assessment for the year 1996-97 and the revenue recovery notice issued pursuant to the demand based on the assessment order. According to the petitioner, he is entitled for exemption as per SRO.No.1730/93. He applied for such exemption by Ext.P1. Hence, there is also a prayer for consideration of Ext.P1 by the appropriate authority. The original petition was however dismissed for default and subsequently on the application made by the petitioner, it was restored to file. In the interregnum period Ext.P1 was considered and Ext.P7 was issued rejecting the claim for exemption. Hence, the original petition was amended incorporating the prayer for quashing Ext.P7 also. 2. When the matter came up for consideration today, it was brought to my notice that the petitioner has got an alternative remedy by way of appeal -2- O.P.No.34505/2002 as per the notification S.R.O. 1730/93 to the State Level Committee. Ext.P1 was filed before the District Level Committee. In the circumstances, the petitioner prays for appropriate direction taking note of the above fact. 2. Heard the learned counsel Smt.Sumathi Dandapani appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State. Since Ext.P7 order was passed by the District Level Committee, the petitioner has got a remedy by way of an appeal to the State Level Committee. However, the time limit fixed for filing the appeal is 30 days from the date of receipt of Ext.P7. Since the original petition was pending before this Court, the time during which the petition was pending before this Court is liable to be excluded. Admittedly, Ext.P7 was passed at a time when the original petition was dismissed for default and the restoration application was pending. Therefore, there is no time lost after Ext.P7. Ext.P7 is also sought to be quashed in the very same writ petition. In the circumstances, I direct that in case an appeal is preferred within 30 days from today against Ext.P7 before the State Level Committee, the same be considered on merits, after hearing the petitioner. The interim stay granted by this Court will continue, till the disposal of the appeal. However, I make it clear that in case no appeal is filed within 30 days -3- O.P.No.34505/2002 from today, the petitioner will lose the benefit of the stay granted by this Court. Original Petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMAN, Judge. kcv. -4- O.P.No.34505/2002 P.R.RAMAN, J. -------------------------- O.P.NO.34504 OF 2002 -------------------------- JUDGMENT 18th March, 2008 -5- O.P.No.34505/2002