GODREJ SARA LEE LTD Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayers sought for in this writ petition are to quash exhibit P11 final assessment order for 2005-06 under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and for directing the respondents to refrain from enforcing the demand pursuant to exhibit P11. The petitioner is also seeking a declaration that the sales turnover of its products is liable to be taxed only at four per cent and that the levy of tax at 12.5 per cent is illegal and unauthorized.

(2.) Exhibit P11 challenged in this writ petition is the final assessment order for the period 2005-06. By this order, tax at the rate of 12.5 per cent has been levied on the petitioner and the balance tax due to be remitted is Rs. 1,59,60,720 and interest is also levied. The contention raised is that what is manufactured by the petitioner consists of household pesticides and insecticides which fall under serial No. 45(5) of the Third Schedule to the KVAT Act and the rate of tax payable thereon is only four per cent. According to the petitioner, despite this, petitioner was levied 12.5 per cent tax mainly relying on S.R.O. No. 82/06 and exhibit P12 clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.

(3.) The petitioner submits that exhibits P2 to P9 assessment orders and notices for best judgment assessment for the period April 2006 to November 2006 were challenged before this Court in W. P. (C) No. 1142 of 2007 and that the writ petition was dismissed by exhibit P1 judgment, holding the view that the issue was covered against the petitioner in view of the judgment of this Court in O. T. A. No. 6 of 2006. It is submitted that against the judgment of this Court, a special leave petition was filed before the Supreme Court and the SLP was disposed of by exhibit P10 order dated October 10, 2007. It is submitted that since the basis of exhibit P11 final assessment order and the assessment orders and notices covered by exhibit P10 order of the Supreme Court being similar, exhibit P11 also deserves to be set aside for the reasons stated in exhibit P10. It is further contended that in view of exhibit P12 clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, which is binding on the Department, the remedy of appeal is illusory. It is on this reasoning, without filing the statutory appeal, the petitioner has approached this Court, by filing this writ petition seeking to quash exhibit P11 assessment order.