IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2010 / 16TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30679 of 2010(H) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ SRI.P.P.JOHN, PWD CONTRACTOR, PANACKAL HOUSE, POWER HOUSE WARD, ALLEPPEY. BY ADVS. SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN SMT. G. DEEPA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (AUDIT ASSESSMENT), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WC & LT), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. 4. THE MANAGER, VIJAYA BANK, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. 5. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. R1 TO R3 & R5 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------ WP(C) NO. 30679 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Exts.P2 and P2(a) are the revised orders of assessments issued under the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act) with respect to the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07. Challenge against those assessments was carried up to this Court and in tax revision cases, OTR (VAT) 58/2010 and 61/2010, this Court upheld view taken by the State Appellate Tribunal. However it was clarified that the petitioner can approach the Tribunal by filing review applications with respect to factual matrix which are in dispute. 2. According to the petitioner a review petition was filed before the State Tribunal under Section 60 (8) of the Act, with respect to the assessment year 2006-07, and the same is pending disposal. It is also stated that 2 WP(C) No. 30679/2010 along with the review petition the petitioner had filed Ext.P6 stay petition. Meanwhile, modified assessments with respect to both the years were issued by the first respondent, as per Exts.P7 and P7(a). Since there are some discrepancies with respect to the rate of tax applied, the petitioner filed Ext.P8 petition under Section 66 of the KVAT Act seeking rectification. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that if the review petition pending before the Tribunal as well as the rectification application pending before the first respondent are allowed, there will be considerable reduction in the total liability of the petitioner. Grievance of the petitioner is that without disposal of the above said matters recovery steps are being pursued and Bank Account of the petitioner was attached on issuing garnishee order under Ext.P1. 4. Under the above circumstances, I am of the view that the Writ Petition can be disposed of on issuing 3 WP(C) No. 30679/2010 directions to the authorities concerned for an early disposal of Exts.P5 and P8 applications. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 petition, if it is otherwise maintainable, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 6. So also the first respondent is directed to consider and dispose of Ext.P8 application submitted seeking rectification, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 7. Till such time orders are passed by the authorities as directed above, recovery of amounts pursuant to Ext.P1 notice shall be kept in abeyance and the petitioner shall be 4 WP(C) No. 30679/2010 permitted to operate the Bank Account, provided the petitioner remits a sum of Rs.4 lakhs within three weeks from today, and furnishes Security Bond for the balance amount, without sureties. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc