IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33558 of 2010(T) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- PARISONS AGROTECH (P) LTD., CHEROOTTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE - 673 032, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI.N.K.MOHAMMED ALI. BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR, SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI, SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS, SRI.P.GOPINATH, SRI.KURYAN THOMAS. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001. 2. THE VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 6TH FLOOR, COMMERCIAL TAXES COMPLEX, PERUMANOOR P.O., KOCHI - 682 015. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE - 673 006. 4. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER - II, AUDIT-ASSESSMENT, KOZHIKODE - 673 032. 5. THE SALES TAX OFFICER (RECOVERY) OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE - 673 006. R1 TO R5 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.33558 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- With respect to assessment for the year 2005-2006, Ext.P1 order was issued against the petitioner, wherein their claim for exemption with respect to High Sea sales and consignment sales to the extent of considerable amounts, was rejected. Through Ext.P2 order, penalty to the tune of Rs.85,67,164/- was imposed under Section 67 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act). Aggrieved by Ext.P1 and P2 the petitioner filed first appeals before the 3rd respondent. During pendency of those appeals, the 3rd respondent issued interim order stipulating payment of 50% of the amount demanded. Those interim orders were challenged before this court in a writ petition and further in a writ appeal. Through Ext.P2 and P3 judgments a Division Bench of this court directed the 3rd respondent to dispose of the appeals within a time stipulated, without insisting for payment of any amount. Thereafter the 3rd respondent had disposed of the appeals. In Ext.P5 order the assessment was sustained, W.P.(C).33558/10-T -2- except to an extent of a direction to rectify an error of computation. In Ext.P6 order the penalty was reduced to an amount of Rs.50 lakhs as against the amount of Rs.85,67,164/-. 2. Against Ext.P5 and P6 the petitioner had preferred further appeals before the 2nd respondent Tribunal as evidenced from Ext.P7 and P8. Along with the appeals the petitioner had also preferred stay petitions as per Ext.P9 and P10 and further petitions seeking early hearing of the appeals, as per Ext.P11 and P12. Present grievance of the petitioner is that, without taking into consideration of pendency of the appeals and stay petitions before the Tribunal, steps for recovery has been initiated by the 5th respondent, on issuing Ext.P13 revenue recovery notice. Hence the petitioner seeks direction for a disposal of Ext.P7 and P8 appeals and till then to restrain recovery steps, taking note of the directions issued by this court in Ext.P3 and P4 judgments. 3. Having considered the facts and circumstances I am of the view that the statutory appellate authority is in seizin of the matter, and that the said appellate authority has to consider the question regarding granting of interim relief, at the first instance. I find no reason to presume that the 2nd respondent will not take note of the directions issued by this court in Ext.P3 and Ext.P4, while deciding the question regarding granting of W.P.(C).33558/10-T -3- interim relief. Therefore I am of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P9 and P10 applications for stay. 4. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P9 and P10 stay petitions, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 5. Till such time orders are passed by the Tribunal as directed above, recovery of amounts covered under Ext.P1 and Ext.P2, which were modified through the first appellate orders, and which is now sought to be recovered through Ext.P13 notice, shall be kept in abeyance. 6. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent Tribunal for proper compliance. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb