IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2011 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 26724 of 2006(F) ------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M/S.WOOD DECK PLAZA (P) LTD., PERINGANNUR, MUNDOOR, PERAMANGALAM P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 545, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR V.K.HAMEED, KARIYAT HOUSE, KALATHOD, OLLUKKARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 655. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, (COMMERCIAL TAXES), IIIRD CIRCLE, THRISSUR. 2. THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (COMMERCIAL TAXES), THRISSUR. 3. SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDL. BENCH, PALAKKAD. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEAER SRI. NOBLE MATHEW THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/12/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.6724/2006 F APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSEDBY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DTD. 31/07/2002. P2: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 29/01/2003. P3: COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, PALAKKAD DTD. 12/05/2003. P4: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN RECTIFICATION PETITION NO.20/2003 (IN T.A.NO.165/2003) DTD. 20/01/2004. P5: COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 03/04/2006. P6: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 03/04/2006 FILED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P7: COPY OF THE ORDER A5/12274/98 DTD. 01/09/1999 ISSUED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, THRISSUR. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 26724 of 2006 ================== Dated this the 6th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an assessee on the files of the 1st respondent under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. They were assessed to sales tax for the year 2000-01. According to the petitioner, for that year the petitioner was entitled to sales tax exemption for an amount of ` 9,92,000/- as evidenced by Ext.P7 order of the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Thrissur. Without reference to that exemption, assessment was completed and the petitioner filed an appeal before the first appellate authority, who confirmed the assessment. The petitioner filed a second appeal before the 3rd respondent–Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, who also, originally dismissed the appeal, by Ext.P3 order. Later on, the petitioner filed an application for rectification of the earlier order. In the same, the 3rd respondent passed Ext.P4 order allowing the petitioner's claim for exemption for the year 2000-01. The petitioner filed Exts.P5 and P6 requests before the 1st respondent and the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Thiruvananthapuram, for implementing Ext.P4 order of the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the 1st respondent in the matter, the petitioner has filed this writ petition w.p.c.26724/06 - : 2 :- seeking the following reliefs: “i) issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to implement Ext.P4 order passed by the 3rd respondent, carrying out the directions contained therein as expeditiously as possible; ii) issue a direction to the respondent (sic) to pass appropriate orders on Exhibit P5 petition as expeditiously as possible.” 2. No counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 and 2. The learned Government Pleader would contend that as per his instructions, against Ext.P4, a review petition has been filed before the Tribunal under Section 39(4) of the KGST Act, which is pending. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that he has no information of a review petition pending. I am of opinion that when appellate orders are passed, unless the State obtains stay orders in that review petition, if any filed, they cannot simply sit on Ext.P4 order on the ground that the review petition is pending. They are bound to comply with the orders of the appellate authority under Rule 44 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963, which prescribes 90 days for giving effect to appellate orders. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to see that Ext.P4 order is given effect to, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, without prejudice to the right of the 1st respondent to take such action as is warranted by law on the basis of the orders, the Tribunal may pass on w.p.c.26724/06 - : 3 :- the review petition stated to have been filed by the State, the pendency of which is disputed by the petitioner. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge