IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2010 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 16240 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.RAMESH EXPORTS PVT. LTD., K.P.V/390 (OLD NO.VIII/320, KALPETTA NORTH, WAYANAD DISTRICT, HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE, 45, PALACE ROAD, P.O.BOX 5120, BANGALORE-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, A.PANEER SELVAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.T.G.ABHILASH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, VYTHIRI AT KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 16240 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Exts.P1 and P2 notices with regard to the assessment sought to be made in respect of the purchase tax for August 2009 and December 2009, besides challenging Ext.P7 dated 15.03.2010 issued by the respondent to the check post authorities, so as to collect the tax in advance in respect of coffee being transported by the petitioner from their branches in Karnataka and Tamilnadu. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that immediately on receipt of Exts.P1 and P2, the petitioner preferred Exts.P3 to P6 statement of objections/additional objections. It is also stated that a proper representation has been filed before the respondent, in respect of Ext.P7, as borne by Ext.P8. Because of the issuance of Ext.P7, the trade and business of the petitioner have come to a standstill; more so, in view of the specific contention of the petitioner that the commodity dealt with by the petitioner is not exigible to any tax; being 100% export-oriented. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits with reference to the materials on record that the proceedings could be caused to be finalized by the concerned respondent within a specified time. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to consider Exts.P3 to P6 in 2 WP(C) No. 16240/2010 response to Exts.P1 and P2 notices and Ext.P8 representation in respect of Ext.P7 proceedings and to pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with the Writ Petition before the respondent so as to specify the date of hearing as above. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc