IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 9999 of 2011(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S PROCTOR AND GAMBLE HOUSE PRODUCTS LTD,EDAPPALLY.P.O,KOCHI-682024,REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,MR.MANOJ.T.R. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.KURYAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES,ERNAKULAM,COMMERCIAL TAX COMPLEX, PERUMANNOOR.P.O,KOCHI-682015. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES(ASSMT),SPECIAL CIRCLE-1,ERNAKULAM, COMMERCIAL TAX COMPLEX,PERUMANOOR.P.O, KOCHI-682015. 4. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES,KAKKANAD,ERNAKULAM, BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 9999 of 2011(Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ASSESSMNET ORDER DTD.27.11.2010 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2002-03 EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ASSESSMNET ORDER DTD.27.11.2010 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2003-04 EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.28.4.2006 EXT.P4: COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD.21.2.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT CHALLENGING EXT.P1 ASSESSMENT ORDER. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD.21.2.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT CHALLENGING EXT.P2 ASSESSMENT ORDER. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY DTD.21.2.2011 FILED ALONG WITH EXT.P4 APPEAL EXT.P7: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY DTD.21.2.2011 FILED ALONG WITH EXT.P5 APPEAL EXT.P8: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY OF COLLECTION OF TAX DTD.21.2.2011 FILED ALONG WITH EXT.P4 APPEAL EXT.P9: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY OF COLLECTION OF TAX DTD.21.2.2011 FILED ALONG WITH EXT.P5 APPEAL EXT.P10: COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DTD.9.3.2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2002-03 EXT.P11: COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DTD.9.3.2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2003-04 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE ab C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.9999 of 2011-Y ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by Exts.P1 and P2 orders of assessments finalised against the petitioner for the years 2002-03 and 2003- 04, the petitioner had preferred statutory appeals before the 2nd respondent, as evidenced from Exts.P4 and P5. The appeals were filed along with applications seeking condonation of delay, as per Exts.P6 and P7. Exts.P8 and P9 are the stay petitions filed along with the appeals. Meanwhile, coercive steps of recovery was initiated without considering pendency of the appeals, on issuing Exts.P10 and P11 revenue recovery notices. Hence the petitioner is seeking direction to restrain the recovery steps till the disposal of the appeals. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that provisional assessments made with respect to the very same years were the subject matter of appeals before the Kerala Sales Tax Tribunal and in Ext.P3 order of the Tribunal the main contentions raised by the petitioner regarding exemption of the sale of brand name, was accepted and the petitioner had already been exonerated W.P(C) No.9999 of 2011-Y 2 from the liability. According to the petitioner, the impugned assessment, Exts.P1 and P2 are finalised without taking into consideration of the findings of the Tribunal. 3. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand pointed out that, the State had already filed revision against Ext.P3 order of the Tribunal and the same is pending disposal before this Court. It is also contended that the assessments now completed is based on a dictum laid by a Division Bench of this Court on the issue involved. 4. However, since the matter is now pending consideration before the appellate authority, I am not proposing to enter upon any findings on the issue contested. On the other hand, I am of the view that interest of justice will be served if the appellate authority is directed to have an expeditious consideration of the matter. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P6 and P7 delay condonation applications, 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 W.P(C) No.9999 of 2011-Y 3 judgment. If the delay is condoned and the appeals are registered then the 2nd respondent shall consider and pass orders on Exts.P8 and P9 stay petitions, simultaneously. 6. Needless to say that while considering the question regarding granting of interim relief, the 2nd respondent shall take note of the decision of the Tribunal in Ext.P3 and also any other relevant factors which will be urged before that authority. 7. Till such time orders are passed by the 2nd respondent as directed above, recovery steps now initiated pursuant to Exts.P10 and P11 shall be kept in abeyance. 8. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab