IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2010 / 27TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18775 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.J.R. & SONS, CC NO.40/7827A, ACHUTHA WARRIOR LANE, M.G.ROAD, COCHIN-682 035, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER R.BADARI NARAYAN. BY ADV. SRI.TOMSON T.EMMANUEL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KVAT 2ND CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 018. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, COCHIN-682 015. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682 030. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ................................................... WP (C) No. 18775 of 2010 ............................................... Dated this the 17th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T ------------------------ Being aggrieved of Exhibit P3 assessment order passed by the first respondent, the petitioner has preferred Exhibit P4 appeal along with Exhibit P5 petition to condone the delay in filing the same as well as Exhibit P6 petition for stay, which are pending consideration before the second respondent. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, without any regard to the pendency of the said proceedings, Exhibit P7 notice has been issued by the third respondent, under the Revenue Recovery Act, which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 2 WP (C) No. 18775 of 2010 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, absolutely no rhyme or reason is there, for having the assessment finalized as borne by Exhibit P3, in so far as there is no case for the respondents that there is any suppression at the hands of the petitioner. The main dispute is with regard to the alleged discrepancy as to the 'profit margin' between the items which are taxable @ 4% (parts like nuts and bolts)and the Company- manufactured items which are taxable @ 12.5%. The learned counsel submits that the actual facts and figures have been correctly explained by the petitioner, which however have not been properly considered by the assessment authority and hence under challenge in this appeal. 4. In the particular facts and circumstances, this Court finds it fit and proper to direct the second respondent /appellate authority to consider Exhibit P4 appeal and Exhibit P5 to condone the delay on merits. Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to 3 WP (C) No. 18775 of 2010 consider Exhibit P4 and P5 and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, till such final orders are passed on Exhibit P4 and P5, all further coercive proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P7 shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. rkc