IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33384 of 2010(W) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- GOPIKA AGENCIES, ORUMANAYUR, BY MANAGING PARTNER, S.ANOOP. BY ADVS. SRI.P.RAGHUNATHAN, SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD-680 506. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), ERNAKULAM-682 015, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES. 3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, IRINJALAKUDA-680 125. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 33384 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 4th day of November,2010 JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 order of assessment completed with respect to the period from 4/2009 to 2/2010, under the provisions of the the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act), the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the 2nd respondent. Ext.P3 is the stay petition filed along with the appeal. Grievance of the petitioner is that, without considering pendency of the appeal and petition for stay, recovery steps has now been initiated on issuing Ext.P4 notice under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Hence this writ petition is filed seeking direction to restrain the recovery steps till the disposal of the appeal. 2. The sole issue in dispute pertains to rate of tax applicable with respect to the product dealt with by the petitioner mainly “Ujala Supreme” and “Ujala Stiff”. It is W.P.(C) No. 33384/2010 2 brought to my notice that the question is being agitated before the Honourable Apex Court as well as before this Court in different cases and the rate of tax applicable to the product has not been finally settled. 3. Various appeals filed by the manufacturer as well as different dealers are pending disposal in this regard. It is also noticed that in many other similar cases this Court had issued directions to the appellate authorities concerned to dispose of the matter and the recovery of amount was stayed subject to condition of payments of 1/3rd of the tax amount in dispute. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that identical relief can be granted in this writ petition also. 4. In the above circumstances the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 appeal, after affording an opportunity of personal haring to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. W.P.(C) No. 33384/2010 3 5. Till such time orders are passed by the 2nd respondent as directed above, recovery of amounts covered under Ext.P1 order, which is now initiated pursuant to Ext.P4 notice, shall be kept in abeyance on condition of the petitioner remitting 1/3rd of the tax amount in dispute and on furnishing a security bond for the balance amount, within a period of three weeks from today. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.