IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2010 / 28TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 24198 of 2010(Y) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ NITHIN JOSE, PROPRIETOR, M.R.FRANCIS ASSOCIATES, OLLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR, SRI.BENNY ANTONY PAREL. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAX, 4TH CIRCLE OFFICE, THRISSUR. 3. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), THRISSUR. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 24198 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 20th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT On the basis of allegation of suppression for purchase turnover of timber, penalty under section 45A of the KGST Act was imposed on the petitioner, with respect to the years 2001-'02, 2002-'03 and 2003-'04. Contention was that the alleged suppression was not realistic. It is stated that the petitioner stopped the business and the Accountant who was dealing with the affairs had forged his signature in Form No.18 declarations and misused the same to deal with transaction in his name. However, he compounded the offence, by paying a sum of Rs.2 lakhs. On the basis of the above proceedings, assessments were finalized against the petitioner with respect to the 3 years concerned. In appeal, the Deputy Commissioner modified the assessments. The petitioner filed subsequent appeals before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Palakkad. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, against which the petitioner W.P.(C) No. 24198/2010 2 filed Tax Revision Petitions before this Court. Ext.P1 is the common order passed by this Court in the revision petitions. The matter was remitted back to the assessing authority with direction to limit levy of interest under section 23(3) of the KGST Act for the delay in payment of actual tax fixed. Pursuant to Ext.P1 judgment, revised orders were issued by the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P2 series proceedings. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that in Ext.P2 series, the rate of tax was wrongly calculated as 12% instead of 4% liable to be paid. On the above ground, against Ext.P2 series orders, the petitioner had approached this Court in a writ petition, which was dismissed by this Court observing that the appropriate remedy is to file review petition against Ext.P1 judgment. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that review petitions were field against Ext.P1 judgment and the same was dismissed by this Court reserving liberty of the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedy. W.P.(C) No. 24198/2010 3 4. The petitioner produced Ext.P4 series applications, which are stated to have been filed before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Palakkad. In those applications the petitioner sought rectification of the orders issued by the Tribunal through which revision petitions filed against the assessments were disposed. Those applications were filed on the ground that there was an error in adopting rate of tax while finalizing the assessments. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P4 series applications have already been registered before the Tribunal and the same is pending consideration and disposal. 5. If the applications for rectification are pending, it is for the petitioner to seek appropriate interim relief restraining recovery steps, till the disposal of such petitions. It is noticed that the petitioner has not filed any stay petition along with the rectification applications. Since the rectification applications are pending consideration before the Tribunal, I am of the opinion that the matter need not be W.P.(C) No. 24198/2010 4 considered on merits in this writ petition. Therefore, it is only just and proper to relegate the petitioner to approach the Tribunal seeking appropriate relief. 6. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Additional bench, Palakkad seeking appropriate interim relief in the rectification applications (Ext.P4 series), which is allegedly pending before that Tribunal. 7. In order to facilitate the petitioner to approach the Tribunal, coercive steps of recovery now initiated pursuant to Ext.P3 notice shall be kept in abeyance for a period of six weeks from today. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.