IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 21ST MARCH 2011 / 30TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 8739 of 2011(N) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ S. SURESH KUMAR, PROPRIETOR, SUSHARA HOME APPLIANCE, PUTHOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM), SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR, SRI.K.UMAMAHESWAR. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 506. 2. THE DY. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM-691 009. 3. THE INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 506. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 8739 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT For different periods coming within the year 2009-10, assessments were completed against the petitioner by virtue of Exts.P1(a) to Ext. P1(d) orders. The assessments were subject matter of appeal before the 2nd respondent and through Ext.P2 common order issued by the appellate authority the appeals were allowed in part and the matter is remitted back to the assessing authority for proper verification regarding the purchase bills and to allow input tax claim on the accounted purchase as per the returns. Ext.P3(a) to P3(d) are the modified orders of assessments issued pursuant to the direction contained in the appellate order. According to the petitioner, the input tax credit was not allowed with respect to the purchases established through production of bills as well as purchases evident from other records. Under such circumstances the petitioner preferred Ext.P4 application seeking rectification of the orders, as contemplated under section 66 of the KVAT Act. According to the petitioner, the rectification application is pending consideration and disposal before the assessing authority, the 1st respondent herein. Meanwhile recovery steps were initiated on the basis of Ext.P5 demand notice WP(C).8739/2011 2 issued under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act for realising amounts covered under the assessment. Hence the petitioner seeks interference of this court in restraining the recovery steps till the disposal of the rectification application. 2. Considering pendency of the statutory petition before the 1st respondent, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing that authority to take expeditious steps. 3. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 application, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 4. Till such time orders are issued by the 1st respondent as directed above, recovery of the amount covered under Ext.P5 demand notice shall be kept in abeyance. 5. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C).8739/2011 3