IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 10TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 19TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 25623 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.TEKCARE INDIA (P) LTD., KANDATHIL BUILDING,KARSHAKA ROAD, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-16,REP.BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY JOBY JOSE. BY ADV. SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR SRI.P.V. DEVANANDA NARASIMHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.II,COMMERCIAL TAXES,ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.25623 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Against Ext.P1 order imposing penalty the petitioner had filed Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 Interlocutory Application for stay, before the 2nd respondent. Pending consideration of the appeal and stay petition, steps for realisation of the amounts covered under Ext.P1 order has now been initiated as evidenced by Ext.P4 revenue recovery notice. Complaint of the petitioner is that if the amount is recovered through coercive proceedings it will result in defeat of the appeal and the contentions of the petitioner. 2. Going by the impugned order of penalty it is noticed that the proceedings were initiated on the allegation that the appellant had stored certain goods in a premise which is not a godown declared before the assessing authority. It is evident from the impugned order that the goods in question were brought in inter-state transport and the same was declared at the border checkpost. The aurhority who passed Ext.P1 had not accepted the evidence and circumstances narrated by the petitioner, which compelled him to stock the goods in the W.P.(C).25623/09 2 unauthorised premises. On the other hand the stock in question is treated as undeclared, in view of Section 44(10) of the KVAT Act. However, since the appeal is pending disposal before the appellate authority, I am not expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter. But having considered that a prima facie case has been established by the petitioner, it is necessary in the interest of justice to direct the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the appeal on an early date, and to stay the recovery till then. 3. Hence the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P2 appeal, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The respondents are directed to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps for realisation of the amount covered under Ext.P1 order, initiated pursuant to Ext.P4 notice, till disposal of the appeal. The petitioner shall furnish a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent forthwith, for early compliance of the direction contained herein. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb