IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2010 / 22ND ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 31463 of 2010(G) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ PUNJ LLOYD LTD., (HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 1,78 INSTITUTIONAL AREA, SECTOR 32, GURGAON 122001), OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KOCHI-682 018, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY G.PRASANTH. BY ADVS. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM), SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR, SRI.K.UMAMAHESWAR. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WORKS CONTRACT), ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-18. 2. THE DY.COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 18. 3. DY.TAHSILDAR (R.R.), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 691 012. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.31463 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Ext.P1 is the order of assessment issued against the petitioner under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act), with respect to the assessment year 2005-06. Aggrieved by Ext.P1, the petitioner had preferred statutory appeal before the 2nd respondent, as evidenced from Ext.P3. Along with the appeal, interlocutory application seeking stay was also filed as per Ext.P4. It is submitted that the appeal and the stay petition are now pending consideration and disposal before the 2nd respondent. 2. Pointing out certain defects in Ext.P1 order, the petitioner had also filed Ext.P2 application seeking rectification. The petitioner had approached this court on an earlier occasion, and in Ext.P7 judgment a direction was issued to the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2. Recovery of amounts covered under W.P.(C).31463/10-G -2- Ext.P1 was directed to be kept in abeyance, till orders are passed on Ext.P2. Ext.P8 is the order passed pursuant to directions issued by this court. The 1st respondent had rejected the rectification petition holding that there is no defect which need rectification. Petitioner is challenging Ext.P8 in this writ petition. 3. On a perusal of Ext.P8 it is evident that the order does not contain any indication regarding proper consideration of the mater. It is stated in Ext.P8 that the defect pointed out in the application is not coming within the purview of Section 66 of the KVAT Act. The authority had extracted the provisions of Section 66 in the order. There is only an observation to the effect that, no error apparent on the face of the record exists in the case. Ext.P8 order is highly cryptic in nature and it is not discernible from the order as to why the rectification sought for is not sustainable under Section 66 of the Act. No reasoning is mentioned in Ext.P8 as to why the defects pointed out are not coming within the purview of Section 66. Proper application of mind by the 1st respondent with due advertence to the grounds raised in the rectification application is totally lacking in Ext.P8. Therefore I am of the view that Ext.P8 is not sustainable in the W.P.(C).31463/10-G -3- eye of law. 4. Under the above circumstances the writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P8. The 1st respondent is directed to pass fresh speaking order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 5. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 stay petition, if the appeal is registered on the files, 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 judgment. 6. Till such time orders are passed by the respondents 1 and 2 as directed above, all further steps of recovery initiated pursuant to Ext.P6 notice shall be kept in abeyance. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb