IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2008 / 21ST POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 131 of 2008(N) ------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------ M/S. GODREJ BOYCE MFG. CO.LTD., EDACHIRA, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-30, ERNAKULAM DIST., REP. BY ITS BRANCH COMMERCIAL MANAGER & AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. P.RAGHAVAN. BY ADV. SRI.BOBBY JOHN SRI.TOMSON T.EMMANUEL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER (AUDIT ASSESSMENT) O/O.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (AUDIT ASSESSMENT) COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER(ASSESSMENT), KVAT SPECIAL CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 131 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: January 11, 2008 JUDGMENT On receipt of Exts.P1 and P2 pre-assessment notices, petitioner filed his reply by Exts.P3 and P4. Assessments have been completed and Exts.P6 and P7 are the orders of assessment. It is challenging these assessment orders that the writ petition has been filed. 2. Petitioner contends that the officer who has completed the assessment lacks jurisdiction. For this purpose he refers to Ext.P8 circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. It is also stated that since the assessment was completed without jurisdiction, the statutory remedy of appeal need not be pursued and for that reason the petitioner justifies filing of the writ petition. 3. The Government Pleader on instructions submits that when Exts.P3 and P4 replies were received, the petitioners were heard and it is on that basis that assessment has been completed. Want of WP(C) 131/2008 Page numbers jurisdiction that is now canvassed is also not disputed by the learned Government Pleader, referring to sec.2 of the KVAT Act. 4. In my view, there is absolutely no justification to bypass the statutory remedy. The question of lack of jurisdiction canvassed by the petitioner for the first time in this writ petition, can also be an issue that can be canvassed in the appeal. A reading of Exts.P1 and P2 in the light of Exts.P3 and P4 shows that an appreciation of facts is necessary for an effective adjudication of the issues involved. This can be done only in a regular appeal before the statutory authority. 5. I see no justification to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction bypassing the statutory remedy. However, having regard to the pendency of the writ petition in this court, I direct that further proceedings will be deferred for a period of 10 days from today and it will be for the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy to safeguard its interests. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-