IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6211 of 2010(B) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- HAJI.K.MUHAMMED BASHEER, PROPRIETOR, M/S.AL-SAFA GRANITE INDUSTRIES, MUTTAKKAVU, NEDUMPANA P.O., KUNDARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR SRI.V.DEVANANDA NARASIMHAM SRI.KURYAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KUNDARAR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHMSUDIN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 6211 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated, this the 25th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, being aggrieved of Exts.P1 and P2 assessment orders, approached the statutory/appellate authority by filing appeals, which led to Ext.P5 common order passed by the first appellate authority. Being still aggrieved, the petitioner preferred second appeals before the 2nd respondent, which led to Ext.P7 common order whereby interference has been declined and the appeals were dismissed. Subsequent to this, the petitioner has filed Exts.P8 and P9 applications of rectification of mistake, along with Exts.P10 and P11 petitions for stay. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent has now issued Ext.P12 notice demanding a sum of Rs.19,96,117/- with further interest and collection charges without any regard to the pendency of the above proceedings before the 2nd respondent Tribunal; which hence is sought to be intercepted by this Court. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that filing of Exts.P8 and P9 petitions for rectification has been necessitated, because of the fact that the 2nd respondent Tribunal did not properly WP(C) No.6211/2010 2 advert to the specific observations and the dictum contained in 1992 STC 98. It is further stated that, there is a fair chance for getting the mistake rectified, on passing appropriate orders on Exts.P8 and P9 and this being the position, it is not proper to proceed with the coercive steps as borne by Ext.P12. 4. Obviously, the adjudication of the issue has been made and considered at different levels. However, taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also after hearing the learned Government Pleader appearing for the opposite side, this Court does not propose to go into the merits of the case, but for directing the 2nd respondent to consider and finalise Exts.P8 and P9 in accordance with law, subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.10 lakhs within a specified time. 5. In the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- within two weeks and the remaining sum of Rs.5,00,000/- within further two weeks thereafter and produce the requisite proof before the 2nd respondent. On satisfying the requirement as above, the 2nd respondent shall consider Exts.P8 and P9 applications for rectification of the mistake and appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three WP(C) No.6211/2010 3 months after production of proof of deposit as aforesaid. The enforcement of Ext.P2 shall be subject to the deposit and the final orders to be passed by the Tribunal as above. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc