Venchamara Fan Co. v. State Of Kerala.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/19TH SRAVANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 38210 of 2003 (W) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER:

----------------- VENCHAMARA FAN CO.

POTTACKAT BUILDING, EDAYAKUNNAM SOUTH CHITTOOR, KOCHI REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETRIX SASILEKHA BY ADV. SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER RESPONDENTS:

---------------------

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES, TRIVANDRUM

2. KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD VANCHIYOOR, TRIVANDRUM

3. SALES TAX OFFICER 1st CIRCLE, KALAMASSERY AT EDAPPALLY COCHIN-24 R, R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.JOSHI, SC, KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD R1 & 3 BY SR. ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.LIJU STEPHEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 38210 of 2003 (W) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANEXURES:

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF A CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF SRO 1090/1999. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF AMENDMENT NOTIFICATION SRO 291 OF 2000. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT (2000-01-KGST) EXT.P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM. // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC & SHAJI P. CHALY, JJ.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.38210 of 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of August, 2015

JUDGMENT

Antony Dominic, J.

The main challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4, SRO 291/2000 published by G.O.(P)No.53/2000/TD dated, 13th March 2000. When the writ petition came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge, having regard to the pendency of W.A.Nos.1740 and 1763 of 2003 involving a challenge against Ext.P4 the writ petition was referred to be heard by a Division Bench along with the writ appeals. It is now seen that the writ appeals were disposed of by judgment dated 17th February 2006 in which the SRO 291/2000 mentioned above was upheld by the Division Bench.

In view of the above judgment of the Division Bench, the issues raised in the writ petition are covered against the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.

SD/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE SD/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE jes