IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2011 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 11758 of 2011(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S) :- ----------------------- M/S. KEMLOGIC LABCARE (P) LIMITED, KALABHAVAN ROAD, NEAR TOWN HALL, KOCHI-18, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, BOBAN M.JOSEPH, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.M.U.JOSEPH. BY ADV. SRI.FRANKUR D.JAYAN SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR RESPONDENT(S) :- -------------------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (INT), DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 015. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 015. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jvt C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C)No.11758 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of May 2011 J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by Ext.P2 order imposing penalty under the Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act, the petitioner had preferred Ext.P4 appeal before the 2nd respondent, accompanied by Ext.P5 interlocutory application seeking stay of collection of the amount of penalty, pending disposal of the appeal. 2. It is contended by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the penalty proceedings were initiated solely on the reason that the petitioner had failed to remit the differential tax amount at 8.5% on the turn over of the sales of photographic machinery. It is the contention that the change in the rate of tax effected by virtue of the Finance Act, 2006, was not within the notice of the petitioner and subsequently he had deposited the entire W.P.(C)No.11758 of 2011 -: 2 :- differential amount of tax due, in instalments. Under such circumstances, the imposition of penalty was totally unwarranted is the contention. 3. However, since the matter is now pending consideration before the statutory authority, I am not proposing to go into the merits of the issue. Ends of justice will be served if a direction is issued to the appellate authority for expeditious disposal of the appeal. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 appeal, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 5. Till such time the appeal is disposed of as directed above, recovery of the amount of penalty under Ext.P2 order shall be kept in abeyance, provided the petitioner furnishes security bond for the entire amount due, within W.P.(C)No.11758 of 2011 -: 3 :- two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 6. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for proper compliance. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. Jvt