IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2009 / 14TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27823 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S. SELVAM BROILERS (P) LTD, SELVAM HOUSE, HILL PALACE ROAD, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER (ACCOUNTS) MR. M. PERIASWAMY. BY ADVS. SRI.K.SRIKUMAR SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSMT.)-II DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE-III, ERNAKULAM 2. THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, (APPEALS), ERNAKULAM. 4. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: shg/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 27823 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. Aggrieved by Exts.P4 assessment pertaining to the year 2000-01 the petitioner had approached the Appellate Authority, the 3rd respondent. Contention of the petitioner was that he is entitled for exemption from payment of tax from the turnover as per the notification S.R.O. No. 291/2000 issued by the State Government under Section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act,1963 (KGST Act). The above said notification was superseded by another notification, SRO No.7/2002, which was introduced on 04.01.2002 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2000. It is submitted by the petitioner that this Court in the judgment in O.P.No.2371/2002 had declared that, the subsequent Notification (SRO No.7/2002) has only prospective operation and the same is not applicable with respect to the period prior to 04.01.2002. It is submitted W.P.(C)No. 27823 of 2009 -2- that after completing the assessment the petitioner had paid an amount of Rs.45 lakhs towards the tax assessed. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the appeal before the 3rd respondent, the petitioner had approached this Court. In Ext.P7 judgment this Court directed the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal within a period of one month and further directed to keep in abeyance steps for realisation of the amount covered under the assessment, till then. The First Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal as per Ext.P8, holding that the exemption was denied because the eligibility was not proved before the assessing authority. Submission of the petitioner is that the assessing authority has not arrived at any such findings and the exemption was denied only on the basis of the subsequent Notification. However the petitioner had filed Second Appeal before the 2nd respondent Tribunal as evidenced by Ext.P9. It is submitted that Ext.P9 appeal is now posted for hearing on 04.11.2009. Complaint of the petitioner is that without considering pendency of the W.P.(C)No. 27823 of 2009 -3- appeal before the Tribunal now steps are being initiated for realisation of the balance amount as evidenced by Ext.P10. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner undertakes that the petitioner will not seek any further adjournment of the hearing on the appeal before the Tribunal, and that the petitioner will co-operate for early disposal of the appeal. Considering the fact that the question regarding eligibility of exemption is an issue covered by a decision of this Court, the prayer of the petitioner for a direction to keep further steps for recovery till the disposal of the Ext.P9 appeal, seems to be justifiable. 3. Heard learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. It is contended that huge amount of sales tax is due with respect to the assessment in dispute and the petitioner had effected payment of only a small portion of the liability. Considering the amount involved in the case imposition of an appropriate condition for keeping realisation of the amount can be reasonably be insisted, is the contention. W.P.(C)No. 27823 of 2009 -4- 4. Having considered the fact that this Court had granted stay till pendency of the First Appeal and also having considering the fact that the appeal before the Tribunal stands posted for hearing, I am inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to the Appellate Tribunal to have an early disposal of Ext.P9 appeal. 5. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 2nd respondent Tribunal to take up Ext.P9 appeal for hearing on 04.11.2009 itself and to dispose of the same as far as possible without granting any further adjournment, at any rate before 30th November 2009. The respondents are directed to keep in abeyance further steps for realisation of the amount covered under Ext.P4 assessment, initiated pursuant to Ext.P10 notice, till the 2nd respondent disposes Ext.P9 appeal. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE shg/