ABDULLA A.M. Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayer:-

(2.) Brief facts of the case are as follows; The petitioner is engaged in the trading of arecanut and is an assessee on the rolls of the first respondent. As per Ext.P1 order, the 1st respondent has finalised the assessment for the year 2011-12 under Rule 6(5) of the Central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules, 1957 (for short 'the CST Rules') and there were no dues payable to the Department. Thereafter, the first respondent issued Ext.P2 notice under Rule 6(5) read with 6(7) of the CST Rules, proposing to assess the petitioner afresh. The petitioner filed Ext.P3 objection to the proposal. However, as per Ext.P4 order, the first respondent finalised the proceedings with a demand of Rs.1,65,622.00. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.