IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2011 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 8118 of 2011(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M/S.ANNA ALUMINIUM VESSELS, KIZHAKKAMBALAM-683 562, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR.BOBBY M.JACOB. BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR, SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ, SMT.NIVEDITA A.KAMATH. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE, PERUMBAVOOR. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MOOVATTUPUZHA. R1 TO R3 BYSR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 8118 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Assessment against the petitioner was completed with respect to years 2007-08 to 2009-10, as per Exts.P7 to P9 orders. Aggrieved by the assessments, the petitioner had preferred statutory appeals before the 2nd respondent as evidenced from Exts.P11 to P13. Exts.P14 to P16 are the stay petitions filed along with the appeals. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that the assessing authority had erroneously assessed tax on the product “choodarappetty” @ 12.5%, whereas the State appellate Tribunal, in an appeal which was filed by one of the distributors of the petitioner, had held that the rate applicable to the product is only 4%. The petitioner also points out that by virtue of the Finance Bill 2011, it is clarified that the rate of tax applicable to “choodarapetty” is 4% w.e.f. 1.4.2007. 3. Under the above circumstances, aggrieved by Exts.P7 to P9 the petitioner had also preferred a rectification application before the first respondent as evidenced from Ext.P10. WP(C) 8118/2011 2 According to the petitioner, the rectification application is pending consideration and disposal before the first respondent as well as the appeals are pending consideration and disposal before the second respondent. Meanwhile, coercive steps of recovery has now been initiated, on the basis of Ext.P18 prohibitory order issued by the third respondent restraining bank transactions of the petitioner and requesting the bank to recover the amounts. Under such circumstances, the petitioner seeks interference of this Court to restrain the recovery steps, till the appeals as well as the rectification application are disposed of. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances as stated above, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the statutory authorities to expedite the matter. 5. The first respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P10 rectification application, 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 issued by the first respondent as directed above, recovery of amounts covered under Exts.P7 to WP(C) 8118/2011 3 P9, which is initiated on the basis of Exts.P18 and P19 shall be kept in abeyance. 7. The second respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Exts.P11 to P13 appeals as early as possible at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is clarified that if the petitioner is aggrieved by any coercive steps of recovery initiated in the meanwhile, he will be at liberty to seek appropriate interim relief from the second respondent by moving stay petitions in the pending appeals. pmn/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE WP(C) 8118/2011 4