IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 32414 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- TECH SHARP ENGINEERS P. LTD., CHITRAPUZHA, IRUMPANAM, ERNAKULAM AND HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT “CELEBRITY” T-49 (OLD NO. T 95) 3RD AVENUE, ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 040 REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR SMT.G.MINI(1748) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF APPEALS, DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, WORKS CONTRACTS, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM , KOCHI. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.32414 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Since statutory appeals as evidenced from Ext.P8 and P9, filed respectively against Ext.P6 order of assessment and Ext.P7 order imposing penalty, are pending consideration and disposal before the 1st respondent, I am of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the appellate authority to have an early disposal of the appeals as well as the stay applications. 2. Accordingly the 1st respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P10 and P11 stay applications, filed along with the appeals, 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. 3. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the assessment as well as order imposing penalty are totally unsustainable, because additions are made in the assessment mainly without considering the dispute regarding rate of tax applicable, and based on value of materials brought for own use in execution of the contract works treating it as sale. Since there W.P.(C).32414/09-V 2 is a strong prima facie case established, the petitioner is seeking stay till the disposal of the appeals by the appellate authority. 4. However, considering the fact that the statutory appellate authority has not exercised its jurisdiction with respect to disposal of the stay petitions, I am issuing directions as above. Needless to say that the appellate authority while considering the stay petitions shall advert to contentions as stated above, and also other grounds taken in the memorandum of appeals. 5. The respondents are directed to keep in abeyance realisation of amounts covered under Ext.P6 and Ext.P7, initiated pursuant to Ext.P12 and P13 notices, till orders are passed on the stay applications as directed above. 6. The 1st respondent will also take effective steps for disposal of the appeals itself at the earliest, thereafter. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb