IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2010 / 14TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30345 of 2010(P) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SHAJAN ABRAHAM, PROPRIETOR, THAYILLAM PAINTS, ULLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SMT.S.K.DEVI, SRI.M.RAJ MOHAN, SRI.M.A.ALEX MARTIN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER(ASSMT.), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPL.CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, GOVERNMENT OFFICE BUILDING, VIKHAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695 001. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 30345 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 6th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of assessment finalized under section 25 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, the petitioner had approached the 2nd respondent appellate authority, by filing Ext.P2 appeal. Along with the appeal, the petitioner preferred Ext.P3 stay petition. It is submitted that Ext.P2 appeal as well as Ext.P3 stay petition is pending consideration and disposal before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner has approached this Court, aggrieved by the coercive steps of recovery initiated against him, without considering pendency of the appeal and the stay petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner specifically pointed that the impugned order of assessment is issued without complying with the mandatory requirements under section 25(1) and it is issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is specifically pointed out that a composite W.P.(C) No. 30345/2010 2 notice calling for objection as well as affording an opportunity of hearing was issued, and after filing a detailed objection, the assessment was finalized without affording an opportunity of personal hearing. Relying on a decision of this Court in Suzion Infrastructure Services Ltd. V. CTO (2010 (3) KHC 299), the petitioner contended that under such circumstances the assessment order itself is unsustainable in the eye of law. 3. Since the matter is now pending consideration before the statutory appellate authority, I am of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of on issuing necessary directions to that authority to expedite the disposal. 4. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 appeal, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time the appeal is disposed W.P.(C) No. 30345/2010 3 of steps for realization of amounts covered under Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance. 5. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.