IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2010 / 22TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 923 of 2010(M) ------------------------ PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.ASSOCIATED LATEX (INDIA) LIMITED BEACH ROAD, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR S.SIVAKUMARAN. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (SPECIAL CIRCLE II), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER)IB)-II, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISIONER(INT) COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 923 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 12th January , 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is mainly challenging the steps being pursued by the respondents by issuing Ext. P1 notice under Section 9(2) of the CST Act as well as under Section 67(1) of the KVAT Act, with regard to the proposal to impose penalty for the reasons stated therein. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already preferred Ext. P2 explanation in response to the said notice. Besides this, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner, on coming across certain serious mistakes in the course of audit of accounts, has chosen to file a revised return in respect of the period 2008-09, as clearly stated in Ext.P3. The grievance of the petitioner is that if Ext.P1 proceedings are finalised without considering Ext. P3, it will cause irreparable loss and hardship to the petitioner. Hence the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by filing the Writ Petition. 2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the W.P.(C) No. 923 OF 2010 2 respondents submits that the apprehension expressed by the petitioner is premature and that the entire facts and circumstances will be considered before Ext. P1 proceedings are finalised. It is also submitted that the revised return stated as filed by the petitioner, as borne by Ext. P3 will also be considered before finalisation of the said proceedings. 3. In the above facts and circumstances, the second respondent is directed to consider and finalise the proceedings forming the subject matter of Ext.P1, after considering Ext.P2 objection and also Ext. P3 revised return, of course, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk W.P.(C) No. 923 OF 2010 3