IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2011/20TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1666 of 2011 (G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- BIJU THOMAS, MUNDAKKAL GRANITES, THIRUVANIYOOR P.O. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.JOHN RESPONDENT: -------------- THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, 2ND CIRCLE, PERUMBAVOOR PIN-683 542. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-02-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C) No.1666 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE PURCHASER INVOICE FOR THE PRIMARY CRUSHER DTD.28.10.2006 EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PURCHASE INVOICE FOR THE SECONDARY CRUSHER DTD.23.2.2007 EXT.P3: COPY OF THE RETURN 1ST APRIL 2010 TO 30.6.2010 FILED ON 27.7.2010 EXT.P4: COPY OF THE RETURN FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.6.2010 TO 30.9.2010 DTD.29.10.2010 EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.7.7.2010 OF THE RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE ab C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.1666 of 2011-G ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T Through Ext.P5 order, the petitioner was permitted to pay tax at the compounded rate as provided under Section 8B of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act). The complaint of the petitioner is that in computing the amount payable under the compounding, there occurred serious mistakes with respect to the nature of the machinery as well as its size. Grievance of the petitioner is that, eventhough those mistakes were pointed out to the respondent and requested for effecting correction, the same was not done and subsequently the petitioner was compelled to make payment of the amounts at a higher rate than what was actually due. 2. In a statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it is specifically mentioned that the petitioner has not filed any objections and he has remitted the amount as ordered without any protest, during the year 2009-2010. Therefore, the same criteria was followed with respect to fixation of the amounts due for the year 2010-2011 also. It is further stated that against Ext.P5, the petitioner has not submitted any objections till date. W.P(C) No.1666 of 2011-G : 2 : 3. Considering the rival contentions, I am of the view that it is for the petitioner to bring to the notice of the respondent through appropriate rectification application, in case there is any mistake in Ext.P5. If any such proper rectification petition is filed, it will be obligatory on the part of the respondent to consider the same and to take a decision thereof. Hence I am of the view that the matter can be disposed of relegating the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy by filing rectification application. 4. If the petitioner submits any rectification application against Ext.P5, the same shall be considered by the respondent and a decision shall be taken thereof, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date or receipt of such application. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab