IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2008 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 13980 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ THIRUMARAYOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.809, THIRUMARAYOOR, ERNAKULAM, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX, FIRST CIRCLE, TRIPUNITHURA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 13980 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Exts.P2 to P10 are sought to be quashed. Petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondent to accept and act upon the return submitted by the petitioner as per Exts.P12 to P19 with the payment of due tax and pass necessary consequential orders. 2. Case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: Petitioner is a Co-operative Society. The respondent issued Ext.P1 asking the petitioner to file return for the period from 1.4.2007 to 30.4.2007. Similar notices were issued for the period from 1.5.2007 onwards. Petitioner could not file the return in time due to the accounting system. The petitioner approached the respondent and requested for time for regularising the account. Thereafter assessment order is passed alleging that the return has not been furnished. Exts.P3 to P10 are similar proceedings. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, without delay they made arrangements to prepare the return as required by the respondent and prepared correct accounts and submitted before the respondent. It was accompanied by Ext.P11, a letter requesting acceptance of the return. Exts.P12 to P19 are such requests for the period from May, 2007 to WPC. 13980/2008. 2 December, 2007. According to the petitioner, the request of the petitioner as evidenced by Exts. P12 to P19 ought to have been acted upon and in view of the filing of the return subsequently by the petitioner, and the assessment orders passed against the petitioner should be reconsidered. 3. I heard learned Government Pleader also. It is pointed out that there is no provision as such to act upon the request made by the petitioner in this case. The assessments have been completed as evidenced by the impugned orders and this was preceded by proper notice which was not in dispute and when the petitioner had failed to act upon the notice, the logical consequences followed and the assessment being completed. The remedy of the petitioner is to file appeal. Then learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will prefer appeals against the orders and the amount which had already been deposited may be taken note of while deciding the appeal and the stay petition. He submits that the amounts which had already been paid by the petitioner subsequently may be adjusted towards the amount demanded in accordance with law. In such circumstances, while rejecting the claim of the petitioner to act upon the request submitted by the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of directing that if the petitioner files appeal WPC. 13980/2008. 3 accompanied by stay petition in accordance with law, while considering the stay petition the appellate authority will give due weight to the payments made by the petitioner subsequent to the assessment orders in accordance with law. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb