IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2008 / 8TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3134 of 2008(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- JESSY ALEXANDER, W/O. M.A.ALEXANDER, MALAYIL AQUA MINERAL WATER, KOOMULLY, ATHOLI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT 7121/2, 1ST FLOOR,KALKAR HOUSE,BAJAL P.O.,MANGALORE-575002 BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.V.K.SHAMUSUDHEEN RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. SALES TAX OFFICER, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. TAHSILDAR (RR), VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 3134 OF 2008 W ===================== Dated this the 28th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that his was an S.S.I. Unit engaged in the manufacture of Mineral Water and that in view of Ext.P2 Government Order, it was entitled to the benefit of exemption. Though Ext.P2 notification was withdrawn by Ext.P3, that was set aside by Ext.P4 judgment of this court. Thus, the petitioner still continues to be entitled to the benefit of exemption, submits the learned counsel. However, denying the benefit of exemption, the assessment orders for the year 1998-99 and 1999-2000 were revised by Exts. P5 and P6 and thereupon the petitioner filed Exts. P7 and P8 applications under Section 43 of the KGST Act seeking rectification of the revised assessment orders. Despite the pendency of the applications for rectification, revenue recovery proceedings continued and by Ext.P9 landed property WPC 3134/08 :2 : mentioned therein is scheduled to be auctioned today. It is in this background, the writ petition has been filed. 2. Admittedly, applications for rectification filed by the petitioner, produced as Exts. P7 and P8, are pending consideration of the 1st respondent and the claim raised by the petitioner is for the benefit of exemption provided for in Ext.P2. 3. In view of the pendency of the applications for rectification, it is only proper that these applications are decided before any coercive action is taken for realising the tax due under Exts.P5 and P6. 4. In view of the above, I dispose of this writ petition itself directing that the 1st respondent shall consider and take a decision on Exts. P7 and P8 with notice to the petitioner and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. In the meanwhile, until decision is taken as above, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P9 will stand stayed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Rp