IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 6653 of 2008(P)
1. ANURAG P.A., AGED 32 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
3. THE STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.A.NAVAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :11/03/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
= =W.P.(C) = = = = = = = = = = =
= = =
No. 6653 OF 2008 P
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 11th March, 2008
J U D G M E N T
In this writ petition the prayer sought for by the petitioner is to
direct the respondents to issue delivery notes with the endorsement
of advance tax to the petitioner on payment of advance tax. It is
stated by the petitioner that delivery notes are not issued since
15.12.2007 and that although the petitioner is willing to pay
advance tax this position still continues even now.
2. The learned Govt. Pleader, on instructions, submits that in
regard to the business activities of the petitioner a detailed enquiry
is going on and it is therefore that delivery notes are not issued. At
the time when the writ petition was taken up for hearing the learned
counsel for the petitioner made available copy of a judgment
rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 501 of 2008
in which after noticing the contentions of both sides the following
order was passed:
W.P.(C) No. 6653 OF 2008 -2-
“i). The appellant henceforth shall pay advance tax
and also comply with the mandatory provisions of sub
rule (3) of Rule 22 of the Rules and also the
circular/instructions issued by the Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes.
ii). The respondent shall issue five delivery notes
at a time to the petitioner for facilitating him to conduct
his business.order
way ofThis passed by us shall not come in the
the appellant taking such defence as are
available to himtake forany
if any reason the respondent
intends to action against the
petitioner/appellant for the omissions said to have
been committed by the petitioner previously.”
Both parties agree that similar order may be passed in this case.
Accordingly there will be an order similar to the directions issued by
the Division Bench in the judgment noticed above.
3. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the
aforesaid directions. It is directed that the 2nd respondent shall
complete the enquiry which it has already initiated.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
jan/-