IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26835 of 2005(T)
1. B. PRASANNAKUMAR,
... Petitioner
2. SR. COMMERCIAL MANAGER,
Vs
1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
3. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SR.SC.,RAILWAYS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :03/09/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)No. 26835 OF 2005
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have approached this Court with the
following prayers:-
“i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction, quashing Ext.P1 notice.
ii) issue a declaration and direction declaring and
directing that the provisions of Section 2(xxxv)(e) and Section
52 of the Kerala VAT Act and similar and allied provisions,
implicating Railway as a Transporting Agency coming within the
purview of the said Act, and the Railway Station, Railway Parcel
Office and Railway Goods Yard as place of business of the dealer
concerned under the Act, are unconstitutional, ultra vires the
Constitution and quashing the same, duly treating it as non-est
and non-existing.
iii) issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction, prohibiting the respondents from
proceeding against the Railway and Railway employees under
them by invoking provisions under the Kerala Vat Act.”
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the impugned proceedings are initiated and pursued by the
respondents on the basis of a judgment passed by this Court in
OP No.18234 of 1999. The learned counsel further submits that
WP(C) No. 26835 of 2005
-:2:-
the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge has already been
set aside by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment in WA
No.1715 of 2005, which is conceded by the learned Government
Pleader as well.
3. In the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is
allowed in terms of the verdict passed in WA No.1715 of 2005.
No costs.
It is made clear that the challenge against the
constitutional validity of the provision is not dealt with or decided
in this case.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
ttb