IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2010 / 16TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20229 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.BHARATH HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. BHEL SITE OFFICE, BPCL KOCHI REFINERY SITE, AMBALAMUGHAL - 682 302. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANGER/FINANCE SRI.S.SANKARASUBRAMANIAM BY ADV. SMT.S.K.DEVI SRI.M.RAJ MOHAN SRI.SANTHOSH P.ABRAHAM SRI.SHANMUGHAM D. JAYAN RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER(W.C) O/O.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,COMMERCIAL TAXES, KARGIL LANE, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 016. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANNATHAPURAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2010, ALONG WITH W.P.(C) 20276 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) Nos. 20229 & 20276 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 7th July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who is a Government of India undertaking company having its registered office at New Delhi and engaged in the manufacture of heavy electrical machinery, equipments and materials for setting up of power plants, had been entrusted with some works in the State of Kerala and the entire work was stated as completed by the end of 2002. Inspite of the request made on many an occasion, for completing the assessment, proceedings were not finalised on time. Quite eight years after completion of the works as above, the first respondent took up the matter, issuing notices for assessment; when request was made by the petitioner for further time, for verification of the records and production of documents, especially when the cause of action was quite old (1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000) and barred by limitation. However, without giving sufficient time, the assessments were finalised as borne by Exts. P1 and P1(a) in W.P.(C) No. 20229 of 2010 and Ext. P1 in the other case pertaining to the assessment year 1999-2000. W.P.(C) Nos. 20229 & 20276 OF 2010 2 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings pursued by the first respondent are per se wrong and illegal, mainly having passed without any regard to the various agreements executed with NTPC and such other institutions who awarded works to the petitioner. There is also a contention that the assessment has been finalised without any regard to the 'law of limitation' as provided under Section 17 (6) of the KGST Act. 3. This Court finds that, this is a matter which requires to be considered by the statutory authority, more so, since the impugned orders are very much appealable. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is relegated to avail the statutory remedy by way of appeal . If any such appeal is filed before the concerned Appellate authority within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, the said appeal shall be considered and final orders shall be passed referring to the actual facts and circumstances including the position with regard to question of limitation, of course, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which shall be done as expeditiously as W.P.(C) Nos. 20229 & 20276 OF 2010 3 possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is made clear that , till such final orders are passed on the appeal, so proposed to be filed by the petitioner (as put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner), further coercive proceedings, if any, pursuant to Exts. P1 and P1(a) shall be kept in abeyance . The Writ Petitions are disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk