IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2010 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36677 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHAJI.K.VARGHESE, KALLUNGAL HOUSE, MAVUDY, POTHANIKAD P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER-I, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DT.- 686 691. 2. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, (RAPID ACTION) COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM, EDAPPALLY-682 024. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM-682 015. BY ADV.SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 36677 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT By virtue of Ext.P5 order penalty was imposed upon the petitioner, under Section 47(6) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act), consequent to an interception of transport of 'live chicken' without proper records. Through Ext.P5 order, the security deposit furnished by the petitioner to the tune of Rs.8,000/- was directed to be adjusted towards penalty. Aggrieved by Ext.P5, the petitioner had filed statutory appeal before the 3rd respondent, as evidenced from Ext.P6. It is stated that on the basis of Ext.P5 order the assessing authority had now proposed a best judgment assessment, under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. Ext.P2 is the proposal notice issued in this regard. According to the petitioner on receipt of Ext.P2 he had submitted Exts.P3 and P4 request seeking time for filing objections. 2. It is stated that, the proposed assessment is 2 WP(C) No. 36677/2010 solely on the basis of the order of penalty and huge additions were proposed on the basis that the petitioner might have effected sale of live chicken without disclosing such turnover. It is submitted that if the assessment is finalised before disposal of the statutory appeal filed against the order of penalty, that will cause severe prejudice and heavy financial burden. Therefore the petitioner seeks direction for an early disposal of the appeal and to restrain finalisation of the assessment till then. 3. Heard, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the 3rd respondent can be directed to expedite disposal of Ext.P6 appeal. 4. Therefore the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to pass appropriate orders on Ext.P6 appeal, after affording an 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 3 WP(C) No. 36677/2010 judgment. 5. With respect to Ext.P2 proposal for completing the assessment under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act, the first respondent is directed to restrain from passing final orders till the disposal of the appeal by the 3rd respondent as directed above. It is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to file objections against Ext.P2 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 6. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 3rd respondent, for proper compliance. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc