IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2011 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 8429 of 2011(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MATHEW SEBASTIAN, UNITED TRADING COMPANY, KOZHANCHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASST. COMMISSIONER (AA), COMMERCIAL TAXES, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 246. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. 3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 246. 4. KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM - 682 015. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.8429 of 2011-C ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T Appeals filed by the petitioner against the assessment completed with respect to the years 2005-06, 2007-07 and 2007-08 before the 4th respondent Tribunal was dismissed for default on 28.10.2010. Ext.P5 is an order dismissing the appeal bearing No.TA(VAT) No.102/2010. It is stated that the other two appeals numbered as 100/2010 and 101/2010 were also dismissed on the very same date. 2. It is mentioned that the 4th respondent Tribunal had issued interim orders on the stay petitions filed along with the appeals, imposing conditions, and the petitioner had already complied with those conditions. It is further stated that, regarding the posting of the appeals for hearing the petitioner had no notice and the default in appearance happened because of the fact that the petitioner was not aware about the posting. 3. However, the petitioner had filed Ext.P6 to P8 W.P(C) No.8429 of 2011-C 2 applications before the 4th respondent Tribunal seeking restoration of appeals. According to the petitioner, eventhough the restoration applications were registered before the Tribunal on 7.1.2011, the same was not posted for hearing and the Tribunal is not disposing the matter. Hence the petitioner seeks only a limited relief to the extent of directing the 4th respondent Tribunal to dispose of Exts.P6 to P8. 4. Heard; Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that interest of justice will be served if a direction is issued to the 4th respondent Tribunal to have an early consideration of the restoration applications. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P6 to P8 applications, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a W.P(C) No.8429 of 2011-C 3 copy of this judgment. 6. Since it is noticed that the petitioner had already complied with the conditions stipulated in the interim orders issued by the tribunal, further steps of recovery for realisation of the amounts in dispute shall be kept in abeyance, till the tribunal takes a decision on the restoration applications, as directed above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab W.P(C) No.8429 of 2011-C 4