IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34242 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MRF LIMITED, POST BOX NO.2, VADAVATHOOR PO, KOTTAYAM-686 010, REPRESENTED BY ITS REPRESENTED BY ITS PLANT MANAGER MR.SAJI VARGHESE. BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.KURYAN THOMAS RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (ENQUIRY) OFFICE OF THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM 690013. 3. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, ARYANKAVU 691 316. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, VADAVATHOOR BRANCH, KOTTAYAM 686 010. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.DILIP, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.34242 of 2010-E ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Exts.P5 to P7 orders through which the penalty was imposed against them under Section 47(6) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. It is submitted that at the time of detention of the transport the petitioner had furnished Bank Guarantee for the value of security deposit demanded. Through Ext.P5 to P7 orders, the authority had directed to realise the amount of security deposit furnished through Bank Guarantee, towards the penalty imposed. It is submitted that the petitioner had filed statutory appeals against Exts.P5 to P7 orders before the additional 5th respondent as evidenced from Exts.P9 to P11. Hence the petitioner seeks direction to restrain recovery of the amounts covered and the Bank Guarantee, till the disposal of the appeals. 2. Under the above mentioned circumstances, I am W.P(C) No.34242 of 2010-E 2 of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the appellate authority to consider and pass orders on the appeals at the earliest possible and till then to restrain realisation of the Bank Guarantee. 3. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the additional 5th respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P9 to P11 appeals, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 4. Till such time orders are passed by the 5th respondent as directed above, the Bank Guarantee furnished by the petitioner shall not be realised, provided the petitioner take necessary steps to keep the Bank Guarantee alive till such time. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab