IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 15596 of 2009(T) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M/S.GODREJ & BOYCE MFG.CO.LTD., EDACHIRA, KAKKANAD, NEAR INFO PARK, KOCHI-30,ERNAKULAM DIST.,REP.BY ITS BRANCH COMMERCIAL MANAGER & AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR.T.V.SCARIACHAN. BY ADV.MR.BOBBY JOHN MR.TOMSON T.EMMANUEL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT) COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE-I,ERNAKULAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.C.K.GOVINDAN FOR R THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 15596 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 23rd June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court mainly challenging Exts.P6 and P7 notices issued by the first respondent, when the said respondent found certain irregularities in respect of the return filed for the period 2006-07. Many a contention has been raised, legal as well as factual from the part of the petitioner to sustain the challenge raised in the Writ Petition. It is also the case of the petitioner that the first respondent will have to complete the assessment order for the period 2006-07 only after verifying the books of accounts for the relevant year supported with documents. 2. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court, the first respondent has filed a statement as to the course of events, specifically pointing out in paragraph No.8 that though the petitioner has claimed concessional rate of tax at 4% against W.P.(C) No. 15596 OF 2009 2 'C' Form declaration, the required quantity of 'C' Forms were not furnished by the petitioner even after the lapse of two years and in the said circumstances, the assessment was proposed to be made under the CST Act. It is also stated in unequivocal terms that no turnover addition was proposed in assessment but only to assess the turnover declared by the petitioner at the appropriate rate of tax, which hence did not involve verification of books of accounts. That apart, it has also been brought to light that Ext.P4 summons was issued due to an oversight, which was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case and further that Ext.P4 stands already withdrawn as per the withdrawal notice , produced as Annexure-R1. 3. In response to the statement filed by the respondents, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.7533 of 2009 producing copies of the notice issued by the department (Ext.P8) and the reply submitted by the petitioner (Ext.P9). Referring to the course of proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the version put forth from the part of the respondents that no assessment is possible under Section 22 of the KVAT Act can W.P.(C) No. 15596 OF 2009 3 only be wrong and unsustainable. 4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that in the instant case, the petitioner, on rejection of the return already submitted, preferred a revised return as provided under Section 22(2) of the Act . By virtue of the said provision, on receipt of the said return by the assessing authority, the assessment for the return period shall, subject to the provisions of Sections 24 and 25, be deemed to have been completed. In the instant case, the only applicable provision is Section 25, particularly since Section 24, pertaining to 'audit assessment', is not at all applicable. There appears to be considerable force in the said submission. The learned Government Pleader further submits that the petitioner is at liberty to substantiate his case before the assessing authority and on finalisation of the proceedings, if he still feels aggrieved, the statute clearly provides for an appellate remedy as well. 5. In the above facts and circumstances, no fact adjudication is possible, invoking the discretionary power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it is W.P.(C) No. 15596 OF 2009 4 not warranted. Accordingly, interference is declined with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the matter before the concerned departmental authority. The Writ Petition is dismissed. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk