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. 18215 of 2010(B) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- UNITED SPIRITS LTD., VARANADU, CHERTHALA, REP. BY ITS SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER MR.R.SUNIL SETHU. BY ADV. SRI.RAJU K.MATHEWS SRI.M.P.VINOD RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALAPPUZHA. 2. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER IB, MATTANCHERRY, O/O.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(INT.), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM AT EDAPPILLY. 3. THE SALE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (ADDL. BENCH), KOTTAYAM. SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER 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.18215 OF 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of June, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved of the orders passed by the different benches of the Tribunal in similar circumstances, one in favour of the Revenue, while the other in favour of the assessee. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the cash discount on the invoice price of the goods supplied to the KSBC is liable to be excluded in the taxable turn over in respect of the Assessment years 2005- 2006, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. The petitioner submits that the returns excluding the cash discount from the turn over as above, were accepted by the assessing officer, who passed the assessment orders accordingly. Subsequently, on initiating the proceedings under Section 45A K.G.S.T Act, the 2nd respondent imposed the penalty, without properly adverting to the valid grounds raised by the petitioner. This was challenged in appeal filed before the concerned W.P.(C). NO.18215 OF 2010 2 appellate authority, who however declined interference, which made the petitioner to file second appeal before 3rd respondent. 3. It is stated that during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.10 lakhs, but the 3rd respondent dismissed the appeal as borne by Ext.P8 order dated 30.4.10. The case of the petitioner is that, in a similar case, the Ernakulam Bench of the 3rd respondent Tribunal, allowed the appeal filed by the concerned assessee as borne by Ext.P9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P8 and P9 are contrary to each other and in the said circumstances, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P10 to P12 review applications before the 3rd respondent and they are pending. The petitioner is constrained to approach this Court because of the coercive steps being pursued by the first respondent, without any regard to the pendency of the above review petitions. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 5. Considering the particular facts and circumstances W.P.(C). NO.18215 OF 2010 3 the 3rd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P10 to P12 review applications and pass final orders thereon in accordance with law, of course after hearing petitioner 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 orders are passed on Ext.P10 to P12, all further coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance. The petitioner shall produce the copy of judgment before the 3rd respondent for further steps. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. mns