IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932 WA.No. 537 of 2010 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.3833/2010 Dated 05/02/2010 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- M/S.FARMS INDIA CHICKEN, KODANADU POST, PERUMBAVOOR, COCHIN-683 544, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR.PRAMOD T.S. BY ADV. SRI.K.J.ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSMT)-I, SPECIAL CIRCLE, MATTANCHERY. 2. THE FAST TRACK ASSMT TEAM NO.II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERY. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERY. 4. THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ADDL.BENCH, MATTANCHERY AT ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. K.P. PRADEEP. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, CJ. & P.N.Ravindran, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 537 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Ravindran, J. The appellant is the petitioner in WP(C) No.3833 of 2010. By judgment delivered on 05.02.2010, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition with costs Rs.10,000/-. Hence this Writ Appeal. 2. The appellant is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The assessment in respect of the assessment years 1997-98 to 2002-03 was finalised by Exts.P3 and P4 orders issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Special Circle, Mattancherry. The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Mattancherry suo motu revised the said assessment orders and passed Ext.P5 order. By the said order, the Deputy Commissioner set aside the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner in respect of the assessment years 1997-98 to 2002-03 and remanded the matter back to the assessing officer for fresh disposal. WA No. 537 of 2010 -:2:- Thereafter, the proceedings were finalised and the assessment was completed under Section 17D of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act by the 2nd respondent. The said orders were challenged by the appellant by filing WP(C) No.23683 of 2009. By Ext.P6 judgment delivered on 27.08.2009 the writ petition was allowed, the orders of assessment passed under Section 17D were set aside and the 2nd respondent was directed to finalise the assessments afresh. Ext.P6 has become final. 3. In the meanwhile, almost simultaneous with the filing of the WP(C) No.23683 of 2009, the appellant filed Ext.P7 series of appeals challenging Ext.P5 order before the appellate Tribunal. He also filed applications to condone the delay in filing the said appeals. The appellate Tribunal dismissed the applications for condonation of delay by Ext.P9 order. Consequently, the appeals were also dismissed by Ext.P10 order. 4. The instant writ petition was filed challenging Exts.P9 and P10 orders and seeking a direction to the Tribunal to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 series of appeals after WA No. 537 of 2010 -:3:- condoning the delay in filing the appeals. By the judgment impugned in this writ appeal the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that after Ext.P5 order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner assessment orders under Section 17 D had been passed and the said assessment orders were set aside and the case was remanded to the Fast Track Assessment Team (2nd respondent) by this Court and therefore, the appellant cannot prosecute the appeals filed before the Tribunal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. We have also gone through the pleadings and records. In our opinion, the learned single Judge is right in holding that as Ext.P5 order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was given effect to and revised assessment orders under Section 17 D were passed and the said assessment orders were set aside and the case remanded to the Fast Track Assessment Team by this Court, the petitioner cannot thereafter challenge Ext.P5 order before the Tribunal. We are, therefore, in agreement with the learned single Judge that the institution of the appeals before the Tribunal and WA No. 537 of 2010 -:4:- the instant writ petition are an abuse of the process of the court. The learned single Judge has, in our opinion, rightly dismissed the writ petition with costs. We accordingly hold that no grounds have been made out warranting interference with the decision of the learned single Judge. The Writ Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ttb WA No. 537 of 2010 -:5:-