IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2010 / 19TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 28685 of 2010(I) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ COODS AGRO PVT. LTD., MINI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, P.B.NO.2, PAMPADY, KOTTAYAM, 686502, REP. BY THE DIRECTOR JOSHY GEORGE KONDODY. BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL SIVARAMAN SRI.RAJI VINCENT RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 2ND CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. 3. INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, KOTTAYAM. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------ WP(C) NO. 28685 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Exts.P1 and P2 orders of assessments pertaining to the years 2006-07 and 2007-08 under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act) was finalised against the petitioner. The assessments were taken in appeal and Exts.P5 and P6 are the orders issued by the first appellate authority. The matter was remanded to the first respondent for passing fresh orders, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and an opportunity to produce documents in support of his claim, within a period of seven days. A condition for deposit of a part of the tax amount in dispute was also insisted through Exts.P5 and P6. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that after remand of the matter the first respondent had issued Ext.P9 order, without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to produce documents in support of his claims. It is contended 2 WP(C) No. 28685/2010 that inspite of specific applications made by the petitioner seeking time, the authority had finalised the assessment restoring Exts.P1 and P2, assigning the reason that the petitioner had failed to produce documents in support of his claims as directed by the first appellate authority. 3. Ext.P9 order was challenged in this Writ Petition, without resorting to appellate remedy available. Subsequently the petitioner had produced copies of second appeals filed before the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, as evidenced from Exts.P16 and P18. It is stated that along with the appeals Exts.P17 and P19 stay petitions are also filed. Under the above circumstances, the petitioner seeks directions for an early disposal of those appeals and also to keep in abeyance recovery steps till then. 4. Having considered the fact that the matter is pending disposal before the statutory appellate authority, this Writ Petition can be disposed of directing that authority to consider and pass appropriate orders. Therefore the Writ 3 WP(C) No. 28685/2010 Petition is disposed of directing the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal to consider and pass orders on Exts.P17 and P19 stay petitions, if the appeals are in order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 5. It is left to the petitioner to seek condonation of delay if any in filing the appeals. If any delay condonation is submitted in this regard, the same shall be considered before taking a decision on the stay petitions. However the needful shall be done by the Tribunal as early as possible, at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 6. Till such time orders are passed in this regard, the recovery of amounts covered under Exts.P1 and P2 shall be kept in abeyance. 7. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the KVAT Appellate Tribunal. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc