IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2010 / 26TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14158 of 2010(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE AT L & T HOUSE, BALLARD ESTATE, PO BOX 278, MUMBAI-400 001 AND BRANCH AT "SKYBRIGHT" BUILDINGS, RAVIPURAM JUNCTION, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI 682 016, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY. BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), ERNAKULAM. 2. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE-II (KVAT), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 14158 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner Company is engaged in the execution of works contract. In respect of the assessment year 2001-02, Ext.P1 assessment order was passed on 24.2.2010, under the K.G.S.T. Act, casting a huge liability upon the petitioner, aggrieved of which, the petitioner has already filed Ext.P5 memorandum of appeal along with Ext.P6 application for stay. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned assessment order is per se wrong and illegal, in so far as the various remittances made by the petitioner towards the tax and other amounts have not been adverted to, nor have they been set off against the actual liability. It is in the said circumstance, that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 application for rectification, which is pending consideration before the second respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that unless and until final orders are passed W.P.(C) No.14158/2010 2 on Ext.P2 application for rectification, further proceedings by way of Ext.P5 appeal may not be fruitful. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. Considering the sequence of events as described in the writ petition and the submissions made by the learned counsel, this Court finds it fit and proper to direct the second respondent to consider and finalise Ext.P2, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to consider and pass final orders on Ext.P2 application for rectification, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the cause of action projected in Ext.P5 memorandum of appeal, will be subject to the outcome of the orders to be passed on Ext.P2 application for rectification, and that the proceedings pending before the first respondent/appellate authority shall be considered and finalised, W.P.(C) No.14158/2010 3 in accordance with law, also giving due regard to the orders to be passed by the second respondent in Ext.P2, as expeditiously as possible. It is made clear that the recovery proceedings, if any being pursued in the mean while, except to an extent of Rupees One Crore, shall be kept in abeyance till such time. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE. nj.