IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 21321 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SURYA ROCK PRODUCTS, NEELEESWARAM P.O., ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER P.M.ANTONY. BY ADV. SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U. SRI.K.N.SREEKUMARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ANGAMALY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV.SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 21321 OF 2008 L ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner came to be assessed by Exts.P1 and P2 for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. Thereafter, notices were issued under section 19(1) of the KGST Act on the ground that the petitioner had one primary crusher which was not taken into consideration while Exts.P1 and P2 were passed. The petitioner filed objections. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had a primary crusher and it was not in use during the years in question. However, orders came to be passed under section 19 and apparently taking into account the primary crusher which is left out, the officer called upon the petitioner to pay differential tax. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no basis for reopening under section 19. He points out that a perusal of Exts.P10 and P13 would show that the primary crusher has not been used during the years in question. It is also pointed out that in a single line the case of the petitioner is rejected by merely stating that the petitioner has declared a WPC.21321/08 : 2 : primary crusher. 2. I have heard learned Government Pleader also. Having regard to the totality of facts, I feel that the petitioner has to be relegated to pursue the remedy by way of appeal. But, at the same time, I feel that the petitioner may be called upon to pay only 20% of the amount demanded as per the impugned orders as a condition to keep the proceedings in abeyance. In such circumstances, writ petition is disposed of as follows. If the petitioner prefers appeals within two weeks from today, the appeals will be considered and a decision will be taken thereon on merits. In the meantime, if the petitioner remits 20% of the amount demanded in the impugned orders and furnishes security to the satisfaction of the assessing authority for the balance amount within one month from today, recovery proceedings will be kept in abeyance till disposal of the appeals. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE