IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2008 / 17TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 15687 of 2007(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- C.I.JOSE, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O CHERUVATHUR ITTIARE, PENGAMUCK DESOM, KOTTAKAMBAL VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER A.MOHAN, S/O A.K.MADHAVAN NAIR, KAMALA BHAVAN, KOPPAM VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. TAHSILDAR, THALAPPILLY TALUK, WADAKKANCHERRY. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, KATTAKAMBAL VILLAGE. 4. SALES TAX OFFICER, KUNNAMKULAM CIRCLE. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC. 15687/2007. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 24.10.1998. EXT. P2 : COPY OF NOTICE DATED 13.3.1997 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT. P3 : COPY OF PLAINT DATED 16.4.1997 AS O.S. 547/1997 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHAVAKKAD. EXT. P4 : COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED NIL IN O.S.547/1997 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHAVAKKAD. EXT. P5 : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 23.11.1998 IN O.S. 547/1997 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHAVAKKAD. EXT. P6 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.2006 IN A.S. 11/2003 ON THE FILE OF SUB COURT, THRISSUR. K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 15687 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT The issue in this case is whether Section 26C of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act will apply to tax which became payable prior to 1.4.1999. Petitioner is the Managing Director of the Company. The recovery relates to the assessment year 1991-1992. Anyway, it is prior to the insertion of the Section. 2. I heard learned Government Pleader also. In such circumstances, I follow the decision reported in Kasim v. Sales Tax Officer (2007(4) K.L.T. 538) and the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P2 is quashed. I will make it clear that this will not stand in the way of proceedings being taken against the Company in accordance with law. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb