IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2010 / 15TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20887 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.NAVIN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, D.NO.2284, NEAR RAILWAY GATE, EDAPPALLY, COCHIN-26, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER N.SUGATHAN. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (WC), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (RECOVERY), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 4. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (RR), ERNAKULAM AT KAKKANAD. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 20887 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT On receipt of the pre-assessment notice, for fixing the liability in respect of the concerned assessment years under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, the petitioner preferred detailed objections, stating that by virtue of the amended provision, the liability of the petitioner could only be to an extent of '4%' in view of the nature of the transaction involved. However, without any regard to the said objection, the assessment proceedings were finalized as per Exts.P2 to P4 orders passed by the 1st respondent; which in turn have been subjected to challenge by filing Exts.P5, P6 and P7 appeals, along with Exts.P5(a), P6(a) and P7(a) petitions for stay, which are pending consideration before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by filing the present Writ Petition because of the notice issued under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, as borne by Ext.P8, P8(a) and P8(b). 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances and the nature and challenge raised, the basic question to be decided is as to the rate of tax, i.e., whether it be at the rate of '12.5%' as adopted by the assessing authority or '4%' as contended by the petitioner. In other words, this is 2 WP(C) No. 20887/2010 rather an issue, which could be settled only on pronouncement of the final orders in the appeal. 3. In the said circumstances, this Court finds it fit and proper to direct the appellate authority to consider and finalise the appeal within a specified time. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider and finalise Ext.P5, P6 and P7 appeals, in accordance with law, of course after hearing the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such orders are passed on the appeals, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P8 series notices shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc