By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menon Smt.meera V.menon Sri.mahesh V.menon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/9TH PHALGUNA, 1938 WP(C).No. 6416 of 2017 (B) --------------------------- PETITIONER:----------- JUSTIN P. JOSE, M/S.JUSTINE COFFEE WORKS, PARAPUR, THRISSUR. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX, & COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR 680001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR 680001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.V. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS-----------------------EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2009-10 DATED 29.03.2011EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25.03.2015EXHIBIT P2 (A) COPY OF REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 30.03.2015EXHIBIT P (B ) COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 31.03.2015EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 20.12.2016EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12.01.2017EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 27.01.2017RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL----------------------- /TRUE COPY/ K.V. P.A.TO JUDGE K. Vinod Chandran, J ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.6416 of 2017-B ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 28[th] day of February, 2017 JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved with the assessmentorder passed at Exhibit P5. The assessment obviously waspassed on the basis of an order passed by the DeputyCommissioner dated 31.03.2015, at Exhibit P2(b). 2. The original assessment of the petitioner was completed by Exhibit P1. The same was re-opened underSection 56 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [forbrevity “KVAT Act”] suo motu by the Deputy Commissionerby Exhibit P2 notice and an order was also passed underExhibit P2(b). It is based on Exhibit P2(b) order that theimpugned assessment is passed. 3. For one, there is an appellate remedy provided and the writ petition filed against an assessmentorder is not maintainable. It is also to be noticed that the impugned assessment is a consequence of Exhibit P2(b); which has also not been challenged by the petitioner. Leaving open the remedy of the petitioner tochallenge the adverse orders, subject to laws of limitation,the writ petition would stand rejected. vku/- Sd/-K.Vinod ChandranJudge. [ true copy ]