IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2009 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30840 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.HOTEL KAIRALY, T.K.S.PURAM, KODUNGALLURE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED ITS PROPRIETRESS JALAJA CHANDRASEKHARAN. BY ADV. SRI.K.J.ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, KODUNGALLURE. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, IRINJALAKUDA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.30840 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. With respect to assessment pertaining to the year 2005-06, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P1 order wherein additions on the turnover conceded is made based on the report of inspection conducted by the Intelligence wing at the place of business of the petitioner, on 28.1.2006. According to the petitioner the estimation of turnover at 155% of the cost of goods sold as well as the additions made alleging probable omissions and suppressions is totally baseless. It is contended that the petitioner had submitted all Books of Accounts and other documents before the Intelligence Officer, as well as before the 1st respondent and there was no instance of suppression detected relating to any unaccounted sale or purchase. Further the Assessing Authority had calculated 55% gross profit against the actual gross profit recorded at 33.77%. Therefore the amount assessed under Ext.P1 is highly excessive and exorbitant, is the contention. 2. However, against Ext.P1 order the petitioner had already approached the statutory appellate authority by filing W.P.(C).30840/09-Y 2 Ext.P2 appeal. Along with the appeal the petitioner had also filed Ext.P2(a) petition seeking early disposal of the appeal. Grievance of the petitioner is that without considering pendency of the appeal now coercive steps are initiated by issuing Ext.P3 notice of demand under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Hence the petitioner is seeking early disposal of the appeal and also seeking direction to keep in abeyance the recovery steps till then. 3. Having considered facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that since the statutory appeal is pending before the competent authority, it is for the petitioner to move before that authority seeking stay against realisation of the tax amount in dispute, pending disposal of the appeal. Hence the petitioner is relegated to the appellate authority for redressal of their grievances. 4. If the petitioner files any application seeking stay before the 2nd respondent appellate authority, within a period of two weeks from today, that authority shall consider the same and pass orders thereon after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such stay petition. 5. It is submitted by the petitioner that pursuant to the demand raised under Ext.P3 the petitioner had effected payment W.P.(C).30840/09-Y 3 of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 27.10.09, as evidenced by Ext.P4. Needless to say that the appellate authority shall take note of payments if any made against the impugned demand while disposing the stay petition. 6. In order to facilitate the petitioner to move before the appellate authority, further coercive steps of recovery pursuant to Ext.P3 notice is directed to be kept in abeyance for a period of two months. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb