IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2010 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 37325 of 2010(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- DR.VIVISH THOMAS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.VEESCO BUILDING MATERIALS PVT.LTD., KODIMATHA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, INTELLIGENCE SQUAD NO.II, KOLLAM COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPT., KOTTARAKKARA-691 506. 2. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, INTELLIGENCE SQUAD NO.II, KOLLAM COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPT., KOTTARAKKARA-691 506. 3. BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, S M E BRANCH, LBS ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPT., ERNAKULAM, KOCHIN-682 015. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPT., GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. R1, R2, R4 & R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.37325 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Through Ext.P4 order, penalty was imposed against the petitioner under Section 47(6) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act). Aggrieved by Ext.P4 the petitioner had filed statutory appeal before the 4th respondent, as evidenced from Ext.P5. The appeal was filed along with a petition seeking condonation of delay as evidenced from Ext.P6. The petitioner had also filed Ext.P7 application seeking urgent hearing of the appeal. It is submitted that Ext.P5 appeal and the accompanying applications are pending consideration and disposal before the 4th respondent. 2. It is stated that, when proceedings under Section 47(2) was initiated, the petitioner had furnished bank guarantee for release of the detention, and by W.P.(C).37325/10-M -2- virtue of Ext.P4 order the 2nd respondent had directed to adjust the bank guarantee against the penalty amount. Under such circumstances the petitioner seeks direction to restrain realisation of the amount covered under the bank guarantee, till the disposal of the statutory appeal. 3. Since the matter is pending consideration before the appellate authority, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of on issuing necessary directions to that authority to expedite the matter. Accordingly, the 4th respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on the delay condonation application filed along with the appeal (Ext.P6) 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 judgment. 4. If delay is condoned and appeal is registered, then the 4th respondent shall take all earnest endeavour to dispose of the appeal at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of one month thereafter. W.P.(C).37325/10-M -3- 5. Till such time orders are issued by the 4th respondent as directed above, realisation of the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance subject to condition that the petitioner will keep the bank guarantee alive till such time. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb