IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2010 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35789 of 2010(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- G.SUNIL,AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.GANGADHARAN, PROPRIETOR, M/S.SAI PLYWOODS, N.R.COMPLEX,M.L.A ROAD, PUNALOOR, RESIDING AT UDHYANMURUPPEL, MALLIKA, THOTTAYIL P.O.,ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.NAVAS, SMT.SIMI C.SIVASANKAR, SRI.SHAJI SAMAD P.A, SRI.T.K.SASIKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PUNALOOR, KOLLAM DIST-685 051. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,APPEALS, KOLLAM – 685 01 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM – 685 051. 4. RAJAN K.P.,AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.PAPPACHAN, MUTTATHIL VEEDU, CHAKKUVARACKAL, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT – 685 051. 5. MOHAMMED ABEEBULLA, 61 YEARS, S/O.SULIMAN KUNJU, IBRAHIM MANZIL, VALAKKODE P.O.,PUNALOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT-688 057. ....2.. :-2-: W.P.(C). NO.35789/2010-W: 6. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PANDALAM THEKKEKARA VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT-685 051. 7. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, ADOOR, TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM DISTRICT – 685 051. 8. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHAKKUVARACKAL VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT – 685 051. 9. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, THALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA – 688 051. R1 TO R3 & R6 TO R9 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 35789 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Exts.P1 and P2 orders of assessments completed with respect to the year 2007-08, under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act as well as Kerala Value Added Tax Act, the petitioner had preferred statutory appeals before the 2nd respondent, as evidenced form Exts.P4 and P5. So also, aggrieved by Ext.P3 order imposing penalty under section 67(1) of the KVAT Act, the petitioner had preferred Ext.P6 revision (which ought to have been filed as an appeal before the 2nd respondent). The above appeals as well as the revision petition were filed along with petitions seeking condonation of delay, as evidenced from Ext.P10 to P12. The petitioner had also filed stay petitions along with the appeals and the revision petition as evidenced from Exts.P7 to P9. It is stated that the petitioner had also filed Exts.P13 to P15 early hearing applications. Grievance of the petitioner is that without considering pendency of the appeals and revision, coercive steps of recovery has now been pursued, on the basis of Exts.P16 and P17 demand notices issued WP(C).35789/2010 2 under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. 2. It is noticed that the petitioner had preferred Ext.P6 revision petition before the 3rd respondent as per the provisions contained in the KVAT Act. The remedy available against an order imposing penalty is to file an appeal before the 2nd respondent. Under such circumstances the 3rd respondent is directed to transmit Ext.P6 revision petition and its accompanying applications for consideration of the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent is directed to accept the revision petition treating it as an appeal filed under the provisions of the KVAT Act. 3. Considering the pendency of the matter before the statutory authority, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of on issuing necessary directions to that authority. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider Exts.P10 to P12 delay condonation applications submitted along with the appeals, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 5. If the 2nd respondent is inclined to condone the delay WP(C).35789/2010 3 and admit the appeals, he shall consider Exts.P7, P8 and P9 stay petitions and pass orders thereon simultaneously. 3. Till such time orders are passed by the 2nd respondent, recovery of the amounts covered under Exts.P1, P2 and P3, which is now initiated on the basis of Ext.P16 and P17 notices, shall be be kept in abeyance. Petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C).35789/2010 4