IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2009 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34694 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.M.MATHEW, KUZHUVOMMANNIL INDUSTRIES KURAVANKUZHI PO, PULLAD, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.THAMPAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (AA) OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (AA) COMMERCIAL TAXES,PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR REVENUE RECOVERY,TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVALLA. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *ADDITIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT IMPLEADED: R4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS) KOLLAM *(ADDL. 4TH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 16.12.09 IN I.A. NO.15805/09 ) BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: shg/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.34694 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. Through Ext.P1 proceedings of the 1st respondent, permission granted for compounding under Section 8 (b) (iii) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) is modified, observing that the rate of compounding adopted earlier is incorrect. Ext.P1 pertains to the period 2008-09. For the year 2009-2010 also Ext.P7 proceedings was issued by the 1st respondent fixing the compounded tax liability at the rates provided under the Finance Act, 2009. The writ petition is filed challenging the above proceedings demanding compounded tax at the higher rates on the ground that it is higher than the rate fixed by the Finance Bill and the Circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. 2. It is noticed that the proceedings are issued on the basis of revised rates introduced by virtue of Finance Act, 2009 for the period 2009-2010. The dispute regarding W.P.(C)No.34694 of 2009 -2- rate of tax fixed through Ext.P1 is based on the measurement of the machinery. 3. It is stated that regarding fixation of rate of compounding, the petitioner had approached the 3rd respondent under Section 94 of the KVAT Act seeking clarification as evidenced from Ext.P8 and the same is pending disposal. The petitioner had already filed appeals from Exts.P1 & P7 before the additional 4th respondent as evidenced from Exts.P12 & P13. Since the petitioner had already approached the statutory appellate authority, I am of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of on issuing necessary directions to that authority as well as directing the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 petition. 4. It is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that there is delay in filing Exts.P12 & P13 appeals. It is for the petitioner to file appropriate petitions seeking condonation of delay, if occurred in filing the appeal. So also the petitioner can approach the appellate authority W.P.(C)No.34694 of 2009 -3- seeking interim relief with respect to recovery of the amounts in dispute. 5. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the additional 4th respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P12 & P13 appeals, if it is properly constituted and also to consider interlocutory applications for stay if any filed before that authority. 6. The 3rd respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 petition filed seeking clarification, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 7. In order to facilitate the petitioner to approach the appellate authority seeking appropriate reliefs, coercive steps of recovery initiated under Exts.P9 & P10 are directed to kept in abeyance for a period of two months from today. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE shg/