IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2011 / 30TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1371 of 2011(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.K.JACOB, PROPRIETOR, BEENA CYCLE EMPORIUM, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR SRI.K.UMAMAHESWAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, FIRST CIRCLE, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. 2. DY.COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM-691 009. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, VAT SPECIAL CIRCLE (PRODUCE), MATTANCHERRY-682 002. BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.1371 of 2011-V ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January, 2011. J U D G M E N T The assessment completed against the petitioner with respect to the year 2009-2010 under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act), on rejection of the return filed, is the subject matter of challenge. It is evident that the assessment was finalised on a best judgment basis, on the allegation that there was undisclosed transactions to various dealers. According to the petitioner, the assessment was finalised without affording proper opportunity to the petitioner to dispute correctness of such allegations, since the details regarding the person with whom the petitioner had the alleged transactions were not furnished inspite of repeated requests. 2. However, aggrieved by Ext.P3 the petitioner had already filed statutory appeal before the 2nd respondent as evidenced from Ext.P4. Apart from filing the appeal, the petitioner had also sought for rectification of the order of W.P(C) No.1371 of 2011-V 2 assessment, through Ext.P5 petition filed before the 1st respondent. It is stated that the appeal as well as the rectification application are now pending consideration and disposal. Grievance of the petitioner is that without considering pendency of the appeal as well as the rectification application, coercive steps of recovery has now been initiated to realise the amounts covered under Ext.P3. Hence the petitioner seeks direction for an early disposal of the matter by the authorities concerned. 3. Having considered the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P4 appeal at the earliest possible and also the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 rectification application filed under Section 66 of the KVAT Act. 4. Therefore there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P4 appeal and a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of W.P(C) No.1371 of 2011-V 3 Ext.P5 rectification application, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 5. Till such time the 1st respondent is disposing the rectification application as directed above, realisation of the amount covered under Ext.P3 order of assessment shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab W.P(C) No.1371 of 2011-V 4