IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 30TH AUGUST 2010 / 8TH BHADRA 1932 OP.No. 6935 of 2001(A) ---------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- R. PARAMESWARAN, MANAGING PARTNER, SREELAKSHMI AGENCIES, POST OFFICE ROAD, SOUTH NADA, KODUNGALLUR. BY ADV. MR. B.KRISHNA MANI MR. V.PREMCHAND RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, KODUNGALLUR. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. 6935 OF 2001 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE DATED 13.2.2001 ISSUED BY JYOTHILAKSHMI OIL TRADERS. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE DATED 13.2.2001 ISSUED BY RUCHI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. TO JYOTHILAKSHMI OIL TRADERS. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27.1.2001 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE SALES TAX OFFICER, KODUNGALLUR. EXT. P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 22.01.2001 ISSUED BY SECOND RESPONDENT IN FORM NO. 21 CC EXT. P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.11.1999 IN O.P. NO. 6142 OF 1999 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ O.P. No. 6935 OF 2001 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 30th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers : (A) Declare sub sections (2) (2A) and (2B) of Section 5 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act as unconstitutional and . void. (B) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing Ext. P3 notice. (C) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the second respondent not levy, assess or collect any tax from the petitioner in respect of the second sale of palm oil. (D) Stay all further proceedings pursuant to Ext. P3 until the disposal of this Original Petition. (E) Any other reliefs this Honourable Court deems fit. 2. It is brought to the notice of this Court that, the issue involved in this is squarely covered against the petitioner, by virtue of the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Bechu & Company & Ors. Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Assmt.) & Ors. (2004) 12 KTR 155 (Ker.). 3. In the above circumstances, interference is declined and the Original Petition is dismissed as devoid of any merit. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd