IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2011 / 7TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2440 of 2011(D) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M/S. FOCUS CORPORATION PVT. LTD., MAMANGALAM, KOCHI-24, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TONY RAPHAEL. BY ADV. SMT.S.K.DEVI SRI.SHANMUGHAM D. JAYAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB), DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, EDAPPALLY-682 024. 2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER(ASSMT) COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPL.CIRCLE II, ERNAKULAM PIN-682 015. 3. THE INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-30. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM-682 015. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.2440 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P1 order of assessment through which penalty was imposed on the petitioner under Section 67 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act). It is noticed that the petitioner has got an effective alternative remedy by way of statutory appeal against Ext.P1. Going by the contentions, I do not find any special circumstance existing for interference of this court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 bypassing the appellate remedy. No patent illegality or want of jurisdiction or error of jurisdiction is pointed out. It is left open to the petitioner to agitate such ground if any available before the appellate authority. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an appeal has already been filed against Ext.P1. In such case it is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to seek appropriate interim relief before the appellate authority. W.P.(C).2440/11 -2- Needless to say that if any such approach is made, the appellate authority shall consider all the contentions raised by the petitioner while disposing the interim application of stay. 3. Under the above circumstances the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to seek appropriate interim relief before the appellate authority. However, in order to facilitate the petitioner to approach the appellate authority, the recovery steps now initiated on the basis of Ext.P8 is directed to be kept in abeyance for a period of one month from today. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb