TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 1005X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 226 of the Constitution of India. No such proposition has been made by the honourable Supreme court in the above decision and no other decision in this regard has been brought to the notice of this court. Exhibits P15 and P16 applications preferred by the petitioner for exempting from such liability were rejected by the Tribunal as per exhibit P17, holding that there was no provision to provide such exemption. The correctness and sustainability of the impugned orders passed by the third and second respondents was subjected to challenge before this court, leading to exhibit P18 judgment declining interference in this writ petition; which has been confirmed by the Division Bench by passing exhibit P19; dismissing the writ appeal. This being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l assessment was made as borne by exhibits P7 and P8, in respect of which, the petitioner submitted statement of objections, raising many a contention. Allegedly, without properly appreciating the objections raised by the petitioner, the final assessment orders were passed, as borne by exhibits P9 and P10; aggrieved of which, the petitioner preferred statutory appeals before the third respondent; however, without remitting the additional court fee of 0.5 per cent (towards Kerala Legal Benefit Fund), under which circumstances, the appeals were rejected by the third respondent as per exhibit P12 order. The petitioner preferred second appeal before the second respondent/Tribunal, challenging the course and procedure pursued by the third respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Kerala [2006] 145 STC 250 (Ker); [2006] 1 KLT 989. With regard to the claim for entertaining the matter, applying the provisions under Order XLIV and Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure; it was held by this court that they were not applicable to the case. The scope of the decision of the apex court in State of Haryana v. Smt. Darshana Devi AIR 1979 SC 855 (pertaining to the rights and liberties in respect of an award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act) was very much explained by this court and held as not applicable. Accordingly, interference was declined vide exhibit P18 judgment. Being aggrieved of exhibit P18 verdict, the petitioner preferred W.A. No. 2381 of 2009. After considering th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ably in the writ petition . The factual position as narrated in this case is entirely different from the factual circumstances dealt with in the above case. That apart, absolutely no law was declared that the petitioner therein was having the right of remedy under article 226 and the observation was only with regard to the probability of challenge by way of writ petition; in the particular circumstances. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the dictum laid by the apex court in Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Zila Parashad AIR 1969 SC 556 contending that the alternate remedy is not a bar to entertain the writ petition under article 226. Reference is also made to the decision in Harbanslal Sahnia v. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
