IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 7TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27271 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.KMP TIMBERS & SAW MILLS, COLLEGE ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER K.P.SAIRAJ. BY ADVS. SRI.BOBBY JOHN SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PERUMBAVOOR. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: shg/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 27271 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by rejection of the claim put forth for credit of input tax payment, with respect to the year 2007-08, and for refund of the excess input tax. The claim was rejected by the 1st respondent through Ext.P5 order observing that while verifying the books of accounts it is revealed that the petitioner had excess sales than the purchase and therefore the claim is not genuine. Further it is found that in response to notice in Form No.17 for production of books of accounts, the petitioner eventhough requested time had failed to produce any details in spite of granting time. Hence the claim made under Form No.21 CC under Rule 47 A of the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules is rejected. 2. Aggrieved by Ext.P5 order the petitioner had already preferred Ext.P7 appeal before the 2nd respondent. W.P.(C)No. 27271 of 2009 -2- Complaint of the petitioner is that pending disposal of the appeal steps are now being initiated for realisation of the difference in the amount of tax for which the petitioner sought exemption as input tax credit, through Ext. P6 demand notice issued under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. 3. Contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, the petitioner has got all documents and evidences to substantiate their claim and that they are ready and willing to produce those documents before appellate authority. However the matter whether the claim for input tax is allowable or not, in view of such documents, is a question which is to be decided in the appeal. Hence I am not proposing to observe anything on the merits of such claim. I am of the considered opinion that the Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the appellate authority to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 appeal at the earliest. 4. In the result, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1, after affording an W.P.(C)No. 27271 of 2009 -3- 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 a copy of this judgment. The respondents are directed to keep in abeyance all further steps of recovery initiated pursuant to Ext.P6 till orders are passed on Ext.P7 appeal. The Writ Petition is disposed as above. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE shg/