IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2011 / 29TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 16668 of 2010(G) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M/S.KRISHNA TRADERS,JETTY ROAD, ALAPPUZHA,REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI.K.UDAYA KUMAR. BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR, SMT.NIVEDITA A.KAMATH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, SECOND CIRCLE,ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2011,ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 37210 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.16668/2010-G: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DTD. 06/04/2009 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DTD. 07/04/2009 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE APPEALLATE ORDER DTD. 06/04/2009 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 06/05/2010 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE R.1. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 06/05/2010 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) Nos. 16668 & 37210 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 20th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T These writ petitions are filed by a purchaser and a supplier of matches. They claim that the transaction is in respect of hand-made matches in respect of which as per the notification issued by the Government, exemption from payment of tax is available to the petitioners. Against the assessment of the supplier rejecting the claim for exemption, the supplier filed an appeal, which was pending at the time when the purchaser's assessment was taken up. The purchaser requested the assessing authority to postpone finalisation of the assessment till the appeal filed by the supplier is decided. But the assessing authority now takes a stand that in order to ascertain whether the transaction is in respect of hand-made matches, enquiries have to be completed in Tamilnadu, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the assessing authority under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. It is under the above circumstances the petitioners have approached this court with these writ petitions. 2. I have heard the the learned Government Pleader also. 3. Earlier, the supplier had approached this court by filing W.P(C) No. 21767/2010. In that, the assessing authority had filed a statement, which is Ext. P13 in W.P(C) No. 37210/2010. In the same, the assessing authority has specifically stated thus: “ . . . . . Since the matches are procured from different and independent unit situated in Tamilnadu, before doing the fresh assessment, detailed enquiry is to be conducted to ascertain the turnover of purely handmade matches as directed by the W.P(C) Nos. 16668 & 37210 of 2010 -: 2 :- appellate authority. . . . . . It is further humbly submitted that a detail enquiry is to be conducted after seeking sanction from the higher authorities at different places in Tamilnadu State. Hence it requires sufficient and reasonable time to complete the proceedings. Therefore filing of above writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is premature and not sustainable under law.” After having submitted before this court that the assessing authority requires time to conduct enquiry for independent unit situated in Tamilnadu, now a directly opposite stand is taken to the effect that the units are outside the jurisdiction of the assessing authority in Kerala and therefore such enquiry cannot be conducted. 2. I do not think that the assessing authority can take such diametrically opposite stands at different times. Since the assessing authority himself has stated before this court that they require time for the purpose of enquiry with the independent units at Tamilnadu, and the writ petition was disposed of on that basis, they cannot now simply say that since the independent units are at Tamilnadu, the enquiry is beyond the jurisdictional limits of the assessing authority. Even otherwise, I do not think that there is any impediment for the assessing authority to make enquiries with their counter-parts in Tamilnadu and get the information in respect of the same. 3. In the above circumstances, the impugned proceedings are quashed. The assessing authority of the W.P(C) Nos. 16668 & 37210 of 2010 -: 3 :- supplier shall first finalise the assessment of the supplier after conducting the enquiry and the assessing authority of the purchaser shall thereafter complete the assessment of the purchaser in tune with the assessment of the supplier. The writ petitions are disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/