IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2011 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6612 of 2011(B) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M. KAREEM, PROPRIETOR, M.K. TRADERS, HILL PRODUCE DEALER, N.P.IX/639, KALLAR P.O., THOOKKUPALAM, PIN-685 552. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER, SRI.K.S.SAJEEV KUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, PIN-682 015. 2. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.IV, IDUKKI-685 603. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.6612 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Against Ext.P1 common order of the first appellate authority, through which penalty imposed on the petitioner under Section 67 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) with respect to the years 2005-'06 and 2006-'07 were set aside, the State had filed further appeal before the 1st respondent Tribunal. Ext.P2 is the common order through which the appellate Tribunal had remanded the matter to the assessing authority for passing fresh orders. According to the petitioner, while remanding the matter the 1st respondent Tribunal, due to a inadvertence, had set aside only Ext.P1 order, but omitted to set aside the original order imposing penalty. Since the terms of the directions contained in Ext.P2 is creating confusion, the petitioner had approached the 1st respondent seeking review of the order, as per application submitted under Ext.P3 and P4. It is the case of the petitioner that the review applications are pending consideration and disposal before the 1st respondent Tribunal. Present grievance of the petitioner is that, without considering pendency of the review petition, the assessing authority is taking steps to pass modified orders on W.P.(C).6612/11 -2- the basis of Ext.P2. Under such circumstances the petitioner seeks direction for an early disposal of the review petition and till then to restrain further recovery steps. 2. Heard; Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents. Considering the facts and circumstances I am of the view that interest of justice will be served if a direction is issued to the 1st respondent Tribunal to dispose of the review petition on an early basis. 3. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 and P4, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as early as possible, at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 4. Till such time the Tribunal passes orders on Ext.P3 and P4 as directed above, all further proceedings for giving effect to Ext.P2 order shall be kept in abeyance. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb