IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 18TH OCTOBER 2010 / 26TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 31754 of 2010(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MUHAMMED MUSTAFA.C., PROPRIETOR, PENTRON INFO SYSTEMS, KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM, 682 015. 3. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (INVESTIGATION BRANCH), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, MALAPPURAM, PIN- 676 505. 4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (REVENUE RECOVERY), TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 306. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 31754 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Exts.P1 and P2 are orders through which penalty was imposed against the petitioner under Section 67(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act). Aggrieved by Exts.P1 and P2 the petitioner had approached the statutory appellate authority (second respondent) by filing Exts.P3 and P4 appeals. Exts.P5 and P6 are stay petitions filed along with the appeals. It is contended by the petitioner that the penalty order was issued on the premise that the petitioner had suppressed certain transactions, which were allegedly un-earthed from the details of the Bank accounts of the petitioner. It is contended that in fact such transactions were covered in the books of accounts of the petitioner and the penalty was imposed on the basis of a mis-appreciation of the fact. Grievance of the petitioner is that coercive steps are now being pursued for realising the amount of 2 WP(C) No. 31754/2010 penalty without taking note of pendency of the appeals. 2. Having considered the fact that statutory appeals are pending consideration and disposal before the authority concerned, this Court need not looked into merits of the case. I am of the opinion that the Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the appellate authority to have an expeditious disposal of the matter. 3. The Writ Petition is therefore disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P5 and P6 stay petitions, in case Exts.P3 and P4 appeals are in order and registered before that authority, 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. Needless to say that while considering the stay petitions the appellate authority shall take note of all contentions raised by the petitioner including the contentions as stated above. 3 WP(C) No. 31754/2010 5. Till such time orders are passed by the 2nd respondent as directed above realisation of amounts covered under Exts.P1 and P2, which is now initiated pursuant to Exts.P7 and P8, shall be kept in abeyance. 6. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the appellate authority. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc