IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2010 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35097 of 2010(J) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MARGO BIO CONTROLS (P) LTD., KALARIKKAL BAZAR, KOTTAYAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGER MR.KURIAN ISSAC. BY ADV. SRI.RAMESH CHERIAN JOHN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER (AA), KOTTAYAM. 2. THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDL. BENCH, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.35097 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Petitioner had taken up Ext.P1 & P2 orders of assessments in second appeal before the 2nd respondent Tribunal. Through Ext.P3 common order, the Tribunal had disposed of the appeals and remanded the matter to the assessing authority for passing fresh orders in view of the observations contained therein. According to the petitioner, the findings on merits of the matter arrived by the 2nd respondent Tribunal in Ext.P3 order is highly erroneous. It is stated that in an identical situation another Bench of the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal had taken a different view, which according to the petitioner is in their favour. Hence it is contended that the 2nd respondent Tribunal ought to have taken an identical view and Ext.P3 issued in contradiction with Ext.P4 is not proper and justified. 2. However, aggrieved by Ext.P3 order the petitioner had preferred Ext.P6 rectification application before the 2nd respondent Tribunal. It is submitted that the Tribunal is now in seizin of the rectification petition, which is filed as per Ext.P6. Grievance of the petitioner is that the assessing authority has W.P.(C).35097/10-J -2- now issued Ext.P7 and P8 notices proposing to finalise the assessment in view of the remand, without considering pendency of the rectification petition. It is the contention of the petitioner that if fresh assessment is finalised without disposal of Ext.P6 application, that will cause severe prejudice. Hence the petitioner seeks direction to the 2nd respondent Tribunal to have an expeditious disposal of Ext.P6 application. 3. Heard learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. Considering the facts and circumstances I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the 2nd respondent Tribunal to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 application expeditiously. 4. In the result the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 application after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 5. The 1st respondent is directed to keep in abeyance finalisation of assessment pursuant to Ext.P7 & P8 notices till orders are passed by the 2nd respondent Tribunal, as directed above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb