IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 4708 of 2011(K) -------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- M/S. MRG BUILDERS (P) LIMITED, SOUPARNIKA, KUNNATH MANA LANE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR K. NARAYANANKUTTY. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WC & LT), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR – 680 001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM – 682 013. 3. INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR – 682 013. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.4708 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order through which assessment was completed against the petitioner with respect to the period from 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2009, under the provisions of Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act), the petitioner had preferred statutory appeal before the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P2. The appeal was filed along with Ext.P3 petition seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal as well as Ext.P3(a) stay petition. According to the petitioner, the appeal as well as the accompanying applications are pending consideration and disposal before the 2nd respondent. 2. It is pointed out that, assessment with respect to the years 1993-94 to 1998-99 were subject matter of appeal before the appellate authority concerned. Through Ext.P8 order issued by the appellate authority those assessments were modified and remanded to the assessing authority for passing revised orders. It is stated that the contentions of the petitioner were allowed to a substantial extent. Grievance of the petitioner is that eventhough Ext.P8 appellate order was issued, as early as in the year 2004, the 1st respondent assessing authority has not given effect to Ext.P8, till date. It is W.P.(C).4708/11 -2- the further contention of the petitioner that, huge amounts will be liable for refund if revised assessment orders are issued giving effect to the directions contained in Ext.P8. Under the above premise the petitioner is seeking stay of recovery of amounts covered under Ext.P1 till Ext.P2 appeal is disposed of by the statutory authority. 3. Heard, Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. It is contended that, with respect to the assessment years 2002-03 huge amounts are due from the petitioner towards arrears of tax and even if any amount will be liable to be refunded on the basis of the directions contained in Ext.P8, the same need be adjusted against the arrears due as stated above. 4. However, considering the contentions as above, I am of the view that it is not proper for this court to entertain the matter on merits. I take note of the fact that the matters are now pending consideration and disposal before the appropriate authorities. Therefore I am of the view that a direction to such authorities to expedite the matter will serve the ends of justice. 5. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to give effect to Ext.P8 order and to pass revised assessment for the relevant years, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as early as possible, at W.P.(C).4708/11 -3- any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If any amount is found liable to be refunded on the basis of such revised assessments, necessary steps shall be taken either to make adjustments of such amount or to effect refund, without any further delay. 6. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 delay condonation application 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. If delay is condoned and the appeal is registered, then the 2nd respondent shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P3(a) stay petition, simultaneously. 7. While deciding the question regarding granting interim relief the 2nd respondent shall take note of outcome of the revised assessment issued by the 1st respondent on the basis of the above direction and should also take into consideration as to whether any amount is due for refund to the petitioner. 8. Till such time orders are issued by the 2nd respondent as directed above, recovery of amounts covered under Ext.P1, which is now initiated under Ext.P4 shall be kept in abeyance. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb