IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2010 / 30TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 32284 of 2010(I) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M/S.THEYYAMPATTIL JEWELLERY, G.B.ROAD,PALAKKAD,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SHERAFUDHEEN.T. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SMT.K.HYMAVATHY RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER,SQUAD NO.I, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD-678 001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM-682 015. 3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD-678 001. R1 TO R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 32284 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner preferred statutory appeal under section 67 (1) of the the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 before the 2nd respondent, as evidenced from Ext.P2. Ext.P3 is the stay petition filed along with the appeal. The petitioner had also filed an application for early hearing of the appeal, as per Ext.P4. Grievance of the petitioner is that without considering pendency of the appeal, coercive steps of recovery are now being pursued, on issuing Ext.P5 demand notice. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that order imposing penalty was issued in total violation of principles of natural justice and without affording the petitioner adequate opportunity to object the proposal. No effective opportunity of hearing was also afforded, is the contention. 3. However, since the matter is pending disposal W.P.(C) No. 32284/2010 2 before the statutory appellate authority, I am of the opinion that such contentions can be raised before that authority, for the purpose of seeking appropriate interim relief. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 stay petition, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and on taking note of all contentions which may be raised by the petitioner. Orders in this regard shall be issued, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 5. Till such time orders are passed by the 2nd respondent, as directed above, recovery of amount covered under Ext.P1, which is now initiated on the basis of Ext.P5 notice, shall be kept in abeyance. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.