IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2010 / 31ST JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18766 of 2010(U) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ EXCEL TRADING AGENCY (KERALA) 8/241, BEACH HOTEL CAMPUS SILK STREET, CALICUT-673032. REPRESENTED BY VINOD N, SENIOR MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 1ST CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS) DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE. SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 18766 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the steps taken by the respondents invoking the machinery under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act for realisation of the amount stated as due towards the alleged tax arrears. 2. The basic issue is with regard to the 'rate of tax' payable in respect of the commodity (Dettol Antiseptic liquid), which according to the petitioner will attract tax only at the rate of 4% and that the matter is still pending consideration before the Apex Court. It is also contended by the petitioner that, the steps taken by the respondents to have the liability fixed and realized, imposing tax at the rate of 12.5% is not correct or sustainable; more so since the disputed extent of 8.5% has been satisfied by the manufacturer themselves under protest. 3. When the assessment proceedings were finalized by the 1st respondent as borne by Ext.P3, the petitioner preferred Ext.P5 appeal, along with Ext.P6 petition for stay, which are pending before the 2nd respondent. However, without any regard to the specific contention raised by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent, while granting Ext.P10 interim stay, has directed the petitioner to satisfy 50% of the liability and to furnish security for the balance amount; which in turn is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2 WP(C) No. 18766/2010 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the impugned order is rather a 'mechanical one', without adverting to specific contention and the legal position on the point. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, similar issue had come up for consideration before this Court in WP(C) 31086/2009; wherein Ext.P11 interim order has been passed by this Court. The analogy sought to be drawn with the issue in the said case is however rebutted from the part of the respondents. 4. Taking note of the facts and circumstances, this Court finds it fit and proper to have the matter disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent to consider the statutory appeal itself and to pass final orders thereon so as to have finality. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider and pass final orders on Ext.P5 appeal in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is also made clear that, till such final orders are passed in the appeal, all further coercive proceedings pursuant to the impugned order shall be kept in abeyance, on condition that the petitioner furnishes security to the satisfaction of the authority concerned. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc