IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2010 / 1ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19305 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- HDFC BANK LTD,FORMELY CENTURIAN BANK OF PUNJAB LTD.,INDIAN EXPRESS BUILDING, KALOOR, KOCHI-682017,REPRESENTED BY MR.SUNITH P.PRASAD, G.P.A.HOLDER. BY ADV. MR. JOSEPH JERARD SAMSON RODRIGUES MR. ROVIN RODRIGUES RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIECLE, DEPT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVAANTHAPURAM-695035. 2. THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2010, ALONG WITH WP (C) NO. 19340 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 19305 of 2010 & 19340 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 22nd day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The issue involved in both these cases is rather similar: 2. The petitioner bank in both the cases is stated as aggrieved of the condition imposed by the second respondent Tribunal, vide Ext.P5 order, directing the petitioner to satisfy 50 % of the disputed liability and to furnish security for the balance amount, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during the pendency of the second appeal. 3. Mr. Rovin Rodrigues, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the basic issue involved is , whether the sale of the vehicles effected by the petitioner Bank based on the 'hypothecation agreement', on the failure of the borrower to clear the liability, will attract any tax liability. More so, when tax payable in respect of such vehicle has originally been satisfied at the time of first sale. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits that no interference is warranted in view of the the law declared by this Court in Federal Bank Limited and Others Vs. State of Kerala [ (2003) 11 KTR 327 (Ker.) ]; however adding that similar matter has already been disposed of by this Court as per the verdict in W.P.(C) W.P. (C) No. 19305 of 2010 & 19340 of 2010 : 2 : 16500 of 2010, referring to the difference meaning/definition of the terms 'pledge' and 'hypothecation'; whereby it was held that, to have finality, the basic issue, which is rather a question of law, had to be decided by the concerned authority by finalizing the Appeal, pending before the said authority. 5. Following similar lines, this Court finds it fit and proper to direct second respondent to consider and finalize Ext. P3 memorandum of appeal. Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to pass final orders on Ext.P3 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, of course after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at any rate, within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is made clear that, the coercive proceeding stated as being pursued against the petitioner, for realization of the disputed liability, shall be kept in abeyance, on condition that the petitioner furnishes 'bank guarantee', for the requisite amount. Both the Writ Petitions are disposed of. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd