IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2011 / 17TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 35853 of 2010(F) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M.SHAHABUDEEN, PROPRIETOR, M.S.TRADERS, MANGADU, KOLLAM-691 015. BY ADVS. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR SRI.K.UMAMAHESWAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.1, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM-691 009. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM-691 013. 3. THE DY.COMMISSIOSNER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM-691 013. 4. THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DY.COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM-691 013. BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.35853/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE SIR DATED 20/06/2005 P2 COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE NOTICE PROPOSING PENALTY. P3 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1/10/2010 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P4 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13/10/2010 ADDRESSED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P5 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22/10/2010 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P6 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26/10/2010 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P7 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24/01/11 RECEIVED FROM THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE), KOLLAM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.35853 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order imposing penalty on the petitioner under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act on the ground that the order has been passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Statute. When it was pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has an effective alternate remedy by way of appeal against the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a normal practice of appellate authorities to avoid considering the question of limitation in appeals also. 2. This is disputed by the learned Government Pleader. According to the learned Government Pleader, the appellate authorities do consider all contentions raised by the appellants before the appellate authority. 3. Having considered the rival contentions, I am of opinion that the petitioner has to seek his remedies in an appeal first. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following W.P.(C)No.35853/10 2 directions: If the petitioner files an appeal against the impugned order within one month from today, it would be accepted as one filed within time. The appellate authority shall consider and pass orders on the appeal, as expeditiously as possible. The appellate authority shall specifically consider all contentions of the petitioner including the contention regarding limitation and enter specific findings in respect of all contentions including the contention regarding limitation. To enable the petitioner to file appeal and seek interim orders, the recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.35853/10 3 W.P.(C)No.35853/10 4