IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 11TH MAY 2010 / 21ST VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14702 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- COODS AGRO PVT.LTD.,MINI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,PAMPADY,KOTTAYAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR JOSHY GEORGE. BY ADV. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,2ND CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM,ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DY.COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),KOLLAM. 3. THE DY.TAHSILDAR,KOTTAYAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER (TAXES) SHRI K.P.PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.14702 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act on the rolls of the first respondent. The case of the petitioner is that the self assessment of the petitioner for the years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 were accepted by the first respondent and therefore the said assessment should be deemed have been completed by virtue under Section 21 of the KVAT Act. The grievance of the petitioner pertains to the re-opening of the said self assessment made for the years 2006-'07 and 2007-'08 by the first respondent by invoking Section 25 of the KVAT Act to disallow the input tax credit in relation to the goods sent outside the state as stock transfer relying on the amendment to Section 11(3) of the Act made with effect from 1/4/2008. The contention of the petitioner is that the said amendment did not have any retrospective effect and therefore, the additional demand made as per Exts.P1(a) and P1(b) is illegal and unsustainable. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred W.P.(C).No.14702/2010 : 2 : statutory appeals against Exts.P1(a) and P1(b) as Exts.P2(a) and P2(b) respectively. Along with Exts.P2(a) and P2(b), the petitioner has also preferred Exts.P3(a) and P3(b) stay petitions. Pending consideration of the said appeals and stay petitions Ext.P5 demand notice has been served on the petitioner. It is in these circumstances that this writ petition has been filed. 2. Exts.P2(a) and P2(b) appeals and Exts.P3(a) and P3(b) stay petitions are pending before the second respondent. The second respondent is statutorily empowered to consider and pass orders thereon and it is a power coupled with a duty. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P3(a) and P3(b) stay petitions filed respectively in Exts.P2(a) and P2(b) appeals within a period of one month from today. No coercive steps shall be taken pursuant to Ext.P5 till a decision is taken on Exts.P3(a) and P3(b). This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE skj