Warrier’S Hospital And … vs State Of Kerala on 24 February, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 5866 of 2009(C)


1. WARRIER'S HOSPITAL AND PANCHAKARMA
                      ...  Petitioner
2. ASWINI MEDICINES, HEERA COMPLEX,
3. INDIA DRUG FORMULATION, T.C. 24/552,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL

3. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,

4. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, FIRST

                For Petitioner  :SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH

 Dated :24/02/2009

 O R D E R
                       K.M.JOSEPH, J.
     ------------------------------------------------------
               W.P.(C) No. 5866 of 2009-C
         ----------------------------------------------
        Dated, this the 24th day of February, 2009

                      J U D G M E N T

Petitioners challenge Exts.P8 and P9 and seek

other ancillary reliefs. First petitioner is manufacturer of

ayurvedic medicines. It is the case of the petitioners that

the Ist petitioner has availed the benefit of compounding

and petitioners 2 and 3 are dealers of the first petitioner.

In the meantime they face Exts.P8 and P9 notices.

2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner

Sri.A.K.Jayasankar and learned Government Pleader.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that

the notices are totally illegal and as and when

compounding has been granted it may not be open to the

officer to disregard the said fact and arrive at a tentative

finding particularly when the matter stands concluded by

Ext.P10 order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.

3. I feel that these are all matters which the

WPC No. 5866/2009 -2-

petitioners can bring to the notice of the authority who

has issued Exts.P8 and P9. If objections are filed the

officer is duty bound to apply his mind and to apply the

law as is brought to his notice and correct himself if he

has erred in issuing the notices. At any rate, I do not see

any reason why I should entertain this writ petition.

Instead, I relegate the petitioners to file objections to the

notices. Petitioners are granted two weeks time from

today to file objections to Exts.P8 and P9. Leaving open

all the contentions of the petitioners the writ petition is

disposed of.

(K.M.JOSEPH)
JUDGE.

MS