IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 6TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 25841 of 2011(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- AL-AHALI BUSINESS TRADE LINKS (P) LTD., DOOR NO.19/441/1-2, SANKARA IYER JN., M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASST. COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR-686001. 2. KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682015. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SHAMSUDHEEN V.K. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 25841/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1 COPY OF ORDER DATED 22/6/2011 OF THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM. EXT.P3 COPY OF PETITION FOR EARLY HEARING. EXT.P4 COPY OF PETITION FOR STAY. EXT.P5 COPY OF NOTICE DATED 5/9/2011 OF THE IST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :NIL /True copy/ P.A. to judge dnc S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P(c)No.25841 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a dealer in gold and other jewellery. Petitioner opted for paying compounded tax under section 8(f) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. The same was rejected. Against the same, the petitioner filed Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P4 application for stay. While that appeal is pending, the first respondent has issued Ext.P5 reassessment notice. The contention of the petitioner is that before the disposal of the appeal against the order rejecting the application to pay compounded tax, if regular assessment is made, it would greatly prejudice the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: (i) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or orders directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 and Ext.P4 applications at the earliest; (ii) issue a writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ or orders restraining the 1st respondent from giving effect to the proposals contained in Ext.P5 notice till the 2nd respondent disposes of Ext.P2 appeal; (iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or orders directing the 1st respondent to accept the returns filed by the petitioner and payment of tax in accordance with the provisions of section 8 of the Act till Ext.P2 appeal is disposed of; W.P(c)No.25841 of 2011 2 and (iv) issue such other writ, order, or direction, which this Hon'ble court deems fit and necessary in the interest of justice. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. Ext.P2 is a first appeal. Along with the same, the petitioner has filed Ext.P4 application for stay also. In the above circumstances, it is only appropriate that the second respondent Tribunal passes orders on Ext.P4 application for stay expeditiously. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 application for stay as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till orders are passed on Ext.P4 order, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 notice shall be kept in abeyance. sd/- S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE /True copy/ P.A. to judge ln