IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2011 / 10TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 9735 of 2011(N) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ WAVES ELECTRONICS (P) LTD., 155-B, ALAPPATT, TOC-H ROAD, VYTTILA, KOCHI-19. REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI.P.I. CHACKO. BY ADV. SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U., SRI.K.N.SREEKUMARAN. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSMT), SPECIAL CIRCLE-1, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM-682 015. 2. ASSISTANT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, O/O. THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, COCHIN SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 037. 3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM AT KAKKANAD-682 037. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES(J) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R1, R3 TO R5 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/05/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.9735 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of May, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- The writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P4 order of assessment, without resorting to the statutory remedy of appeal, on the ground that the assessment is completed without jurisdiction. Contention of the petitioner is that, the sale of the products of the petitioner, which is an industrial unit situated in a special economic zone (SEZ), to any area outside the SEZ, which is described as DTA, need be considered as an import, as per order of the State Government (G.O (Rt.) No.576/03/1D dt.176/03). In the said order the Government had promised to exempt such sale from levy of any local taxes, by bringing necessary amendments. But the assessment was completed without properly adverting to the contentions raised by the petitioner in this regard. Therefore the petitioner seeks interference of this court to quash Ext.P4 assessment. 2. During pendency of the writ petition the petitioner had approached the appellate authority, additional 6th respondent herein. Ext.P8 appeal was filed accompanied by an WP(C).9735/11 -2- application for condonation of delay. In the meanwhile the petitioner was issued with Ext.P7 revenue recovery notice for realising the amounts covered under Ext.P4. Under the above circumstances, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the additional 6th respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P8 on an early basis and till then to restrain revenue recovery steps. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances as narrated above and the contentions raised against sustainability of Ext.P4 assessment, I am of the view that, ends of justice will be achieved if a direction is issued to the 6th respondent to have an early disposal of the appeal. Since a question of legal importance has been raised regarding sustainability of the assessment itself, I am of the view that, pending disposal of the appeal, recovery steps can be directed to be kept in abeyance, subject to condition of the petitioner furnishing security bond. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the additional 6th respondent to consider and dispose of the delay petition filed along with Ext.P8 appeal, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the delay is condoned and appeal is registered by that authority, then the 6th respondent shall consider and WP(C).9735/11 -3- dispose of the appeal after affording a further opportunity of hearing at the earliest possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks thereof. 5. Till orders are issued by the 6th respondent as directed above, recovery of amounts covered under Ext.P4 shall be kept in abeyance, subject to condition of the petitioner furnishing security bond for the entire amount due under Ext.P7 in the form prescribed under the KVAT Rules. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb