IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2011 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 6154 of 2011(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.VOLTAS LTD., M.G.ROAD,RAVIPURAM,, ERNKULAM,KOCHI-16,REP.BY ITS SHARE SERVICE, HEAD-MS.TREESA BETTY FIGARUS. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.RAJA KANNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE SECRETARY (TAXES),GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2. SALES TAX OFFICER(ENQUIRY), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERRY 682 002. 3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES,ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-30. 4. BANK OF INDIA, SHANMUGHOM ROAD, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-31,REP.BY ITS MANAGER. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FOR R4 SRI.K.M.ANEESH FOR R4 SRI.K.SANTHOSH KUMAR (KALIYANAM) FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 6154 of 2011(T) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE BANK GUARANTEE DTD.23.8.2005 EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.2.12.2010 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.6154 of 2011-T ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ext.P2 order imposing penalty under Section 47(6) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act), is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. The said order is challenged without resorting to the remedy provided by way of statutory appeal, on the basis of a specific contention that the impugned order was issued without affording any opportunity to the petitioner for personal hearing. On the basis of instructions received, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents had denied the allegation and it is stated that notices calling upon the petitioner for personal hearing was issued on three occasions, and inspite of acceptance of two of such notices the petitioner has not turned up for personal hearing. 2. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is taking steps to challenge Ext.P2 by filing statutory appeal before the appropriate W.P(C) No.6154 of 2011-T 2 authority. It is left open to the petitioner to challenge Ext.P2 order by approaching the statutory authority. It is also left open to seek appropriate interim relief regarding recovery of amounts due, pending disposal of such appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the amount of penalty imposed, now stands secured since the petitioner had furnished the Bank Guarantee as evident from Ext.P1, at the time when the detention in question was released. On the premise that the amount now stands secured through Bank Guarantee furnished, the petitioner seeks direction from this Court to restrain further recovery steps for a reasonable period, in order to facilitate the petitioner to approach the appellate authority and to seek appropriate interim relief. 4. Under the above circumstances, I am inclined to issue a direction to the respondents to keep in abeyance all further steps for recovery of the amounts covered under Ext.P2 for a period of three months from today, provided the petitioner keeps the Bank Guarantee alive till such date, if W.P(C) No.6154 of 2011-T 3 necessary by renewal of the same. 5. The above direction is issued in order to facilitate the petitioner to approach the appellate authority and to seek appropriate relief as stated above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab