IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 32788 of 2010(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- PRIMA INDUSTRIES LTD., NIDA, MENONPARA ROAD, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR.SANJAY GUPTA. BY ADV. SRI.R.MURALIDHARAN (AROOR) RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), SPECIAL CIRCLE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD-678 001. 2. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD-678 001. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 32788 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT With respect to assessment year 2008-09, refund of input tax claimed by the petitioner was rejected. On the basis of such rejection the assessment was completed under Section 25 (1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act). According to the petitioner, on receipt of Ext.P3 notice proposing for completing the assessment, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P4 objections. Complaint of the petitioner is that, no copy of the assessment order was served on the petitioner after submitting Ext.P4 objection. But revenue recovery steps were proceeded for realising the amounts assessed, on issuing Ext.P5 notice. 2. Learned Government Pleader on the basis of instruction submitted that, on finalisation of the assessment, copy of the order was sent to the petitioner from the office of the first respondent and the same was 2 WP(C) No. 32788/2010 received on acknowledgment by the petitioner on 16.07.2010. It is further submitted that without resorting to statutory remedy provided against the assessment, challenge now raised against the recovery steps is not maintainable. 3. Having confronted with the above situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the copy of the assessment order alleged to have been received by the petitioner is not traceable, since the Accountant of the petitioner company who was in charge of the affairs at that time had left to establishment. Further it is submitted that the petitioner is taking steps to get a certified copy of the order of assessment and to approach the appellate authority seeking appropriate reliefs. Under the above said premise, learned counsel for the petitioner request for indulgence of this Court to direct the respondents to keep in abeyance recovery steps for a short period in order to facilitate the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. 3 WP(C) No. 32788/2010 4. Having considered the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of relegating the petitioner to the remedy of appeal available under the statute. In order to facilitate the petitioner to approach the appellate authority, after getting certified copies of the assessments, the coercive steps of recovery now initiated pursuant to Ext.P5 notice is directed to be kept in abeyance for a period of one month from today. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc