IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2010 / 14TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17290 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- OUTLOOK COMMUNICATIONS (P) LTD 4B, MAJOR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE P.O., SOUTH KALAMASSERY, REPRESENTED BY ROGI FRANCIS, DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U. SRI.K.N.SREEKUMARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WC), COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICE, OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM AT KAKKANAD. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 17290 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The assessment in respect of the assessment years 2002-03, 2003- 04 and 2004-05 was finalized by the 1st respondent under Section 17(3) of the KGST Act. On challenging the proceedings by filing statutory appeal, the 2nd respondent modified the assessment directing to adopt the tax only at the rate of 8% on works contract, as against the rate of 12% assessed. Pursuant to the appellate orders, the 1st respondent passed modified orders giving necessary benefit in respect of 2002-03 and 2003-04 reducing the rate as 8%, whereas in the case of the assessment year '2004-05', no such course was pursued, stating that there was no specific direction given by the appellate authority with regard to the said assessment year. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mistake is sought to be rectified by filing Ext.P8 application which is pending consideration before the 2nd respondent. The grievance is with regard to the delay in finalization of Ext.P8, while recovery proceedings are being pursued by the 3rd respondent as borne by Ext.P9, which hence is under challenge. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 2 WP(C) No. 17290/2010 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P8 application for rectification in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, till such orders are passed on Ext.P8, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P9 shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRsA MENON JUDGE dnc