IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 11TH MAY 2010 / 21ST VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14738 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- VINODH.M, VALOOR HOUSE, VILAYANCHATHANUR, VILALANUR P.O., PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.IV, ERNAKULAM. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 2ND CIRCLE, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DY.COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), ERNAKULAM. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DIST. BY GOVT.PLEADER (TAXES) SHRI K.P.PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.14738 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was a casual trader under the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, hereinafter referred for brevity the 'KVAT Act' only. According to the petitioner he had participated in an Exhibition conducted during the year 2007-2008 at Palarivattom in Ernakulam District and had done a very short business and that the entire activity was closed during the month of May, 2007 itself. The first respondent had calculated the tax on the estimated value of the entire stock and consequently the entire tax has been paid. Compounding fee of Rs.2 lakhs was also collected under section 74 of the KVAT Act, it is submitted. Later, Ext.P1 revenue recovery notice and demand memo were served on the appellant on account of VAT Arrears for the year 2007- 2008. Thereafter, the petitioner had applied and obtained a copy of the assessment order dated 31-10-2009, it is further submitted. Ext.P2 is the copy of the assessment order. 2. According to him, assessment was made as per Ext.P2 overlooking all the principles governing best judgment W.P.(C).No.14738/2010 : 2 : assessment and also the principles of natural justice. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P2 assessment order, the petitioner has preferred statutory appeal as per Exts.P3. Along with Ext.P3 the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 stay petition. Pending consideration of the said appeal and stay petition the 4th respondent is taking hasty action for enforcing the demand as per Ext.P2 order and Ext.P1 demand notice. It is in these circumstances that this writ petition has been filed. 3. Considering the fact that Ext.P3 appeal and Ext.P4 stay petition are pending before the third respondent, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the third respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 within a period of one month from today. No coercive steps shall be taken pursuant to Exts.P2 and P1 till a decision is taken on Exts.P4, as directed above. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE skj