IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2011 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 8893 of 2011(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M/S. SKYLINE BUILDERS, RAJAJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 035, REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER-OPERATIONS - THOMAS MATHEW. BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SRI.R.JAIKRISHNA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WC & LT), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM-682 015. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), ERNAKULAM-682 015. 3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (RECOVERY), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM-682 015. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.8893 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ext.P2 order of assessment was finalised against the petitioner with respect to quarter ended on 31.12.2007, fixing taxable turnover at Rs.12,69,71,480/-. Contention of the petitioner is that the said order of assessment is unsustainable mainly on two grounds. It is stated that the final assessment with respect to the year concerned was completed as per Ext.P1 and it reveals that the turnover conceded for the relevant quarter is to the tune of Rs.15,13,73,688.98. Therefore, the provisional assessment with respect to the quarter has no relevance or validity, is the contention. Further contention is that, there is a serious dispute regarding the rate of tax applicable to the declared goods purchased interstate and the rate adopted is unjustified. 2. However, it is noticed that the petitioner had preferred a statutory appeal against Ext.P2, as evidenced from Ext.P3, before the 2nd respondent. I am of the view that all the contentions raised against the assessment can be 2 W.P.(C).No.8893 of 2011 agitated in the appeal. Since the appellate authority is in seizin of the matter, I am not expressing any view on the merits of the contentions raised. Ends of justice will be achieved if a direction is issued to the appellate authority to have an early disposal of the matter. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 appeal, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 4. Till such time the appeal is disposed as directed above, recovery of amounts covered under Ext.P2 shall be kept in abeyance, subject to condition of the petitioner furnishing security bond for the entire demand, within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/