IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2010 / 21ST JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18155 of 2010(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ THE RUBBER BOARD, KEEZHKUNNU, KOTTAYAM-686002, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR FINANCE MR.VIJU CHACKO. BY ADV. SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN SRI.TERRY V.JAMES SRI.B.J.JOHN PRAKASH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSMT.)I, COMMERCIAL TAXES SPECIAL CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE FAST TRACK TEAM, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM. 3. KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.18155 OF 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of June, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner Rubber Board, which is a statutory authority formed under the Rubber Act to provide for the development of Rubber Industry under the control of Union of India is aggrieved of Ext.P8 series assessments made by the 2nd respondent Fast Track Team under Sec.17D of the KGST Act, fixing huge liability upon the petitioner, without any regard to the actual facts and figures. 2. The petitioner was required to furnish the necessary details of the books and accounts in the course of the proceedings for finalising the assessment in respect of assessment years 2001-02 to 2004-05 by the 2nd respondent Fast Track Team. In the course of the proceedings, the petitioner furnished the requisite documents, but the same were not properly adverted to and W.P.(C). NO.18155 OF 2010 2 the 2nd respondent finalized the assessment demanding a total sum of about Rs.20 lakhs out of which Rs.13.58 lakhs constitutes the liability under the KGST Act and Rs.6.18 lakhs under CST Act. The case of the petitioner is that the tax demanded includes a sum of Rs.11.75 lakhs on the closing stock of rubber as on 31.3.2005, which in fact has been satisfied by the petitioner, as evident from Ext.P9. But the respondents have not given credit for such amount of tax paid by the petitioner and if the said amount is set off, the balance liability will only be about Rs.1.82 lakhs. The petitioner has filed Ext.P10 application for rectification of error, but no orders have been passed thereon, till date. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner, being aggrieved of the assessment orders, has filed statutory appeal before the Tribunal. But by virtue of the mandate under Section 17D(5) it is necessary that the entire amount in dispute be paid so as to entertain W.P.(C). NO.18155 OF 2010 3 the appeal. But since the total tax liability is likely tobe sealed down to substantial extent, if the mistake committed by the concerned respondent is rectified by entertaining Ext.P10 application for rectification, there may not be any necessity to consider this aspect in the appeal and as such, the coercive steps taken against the petitioner are not correct. This Court founds that there is considerable force in the submissions made from the part of petitioner, which is statutory authority under the control of Central Government. 5. In the above circumstances, the 2nd respondent or such other authority, as the case may be is directed to consider Ext.P10 application for rectification in accordance with law, with reference to the specific case projected by the petitioner and the payments already made as borne by Ext.P9, of course after hearing the petitioner. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, till such appropriate orders are passed W.P.(C). NO.18155 OF 2010 4 on Ext.P10, all further coercive steps, if any, pursuant to Ext.P8 series assessment orders against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. It is also made clear that Ext.P11 series appeals preferred by the petitioner against Ext.P8 series assessment orders shall not be caused to be dismissed for default by the 3rd respondent for a period of two months. The adjudication of the appeals as above will be subject to rights and liberties of the petitioner on the basis of orders to be passed by 2nd respondent in Ext P10 application for rectification. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. mns