IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2008 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15778 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ KANNANKANDY FRIDGE CENTRE, TIRUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MR.K.PARIYAYI. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAGHUNATH RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. ASST.COMMISSIONER (AA), MALAPPURAM AT MANJERI. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 15778 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P3 assessment order, petitioner has approached this court. Against Ext.P3 petitioner has already filed an appeal before the second respondent with an application for stay (Exts.P4 and P5). 2. Since the petitioner has already invoked the remedy available to it under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, I do not think it necessary for me to consider the contentions of the petitioner in this writ appeal. 3. Sri.Premjit Nagendran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that the issue is covered by Ext.P6 judgment of this court. 4. Learned Government Pleader on the other hand points out that there is another judgment of this court, which should govern the issue. He also points out that Ext.P6 judgment has been appealed against and the appeal is pending consideration. However, I feel that the petitioner is entitled to have the stay petition disposed of. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as follows: WPC. 15778/2008. 2 There will be a direction to the second respondent to consider and take a decision on Ext.P5 stay petition in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is certainly open to the petitioner to draw support from Ext.P6 judgment before the authority. In the facts of this case there will be a direction to the authority to pass a reasoned order. It will be open to the respondents to draw support from the decision reported in Madras Cements v. Assistant Commissioner (Audit Assessment) (2006(3) K.L.T. 626). Till such time as a decision is taken in the matter, proceedings against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. Petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment as soon as it is received before the authority. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb