IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2011 / 2ND ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 16933 of 2011(N) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ KHAITAN ELECTRICALS LIMITED, DOOR NO. VI/8098, VALLATHOL JUNCTION, SEA PORT AIR PORT ROAD, THRIKKAKARA, KOCHI- 682 021. REPRESENTED BY MR ANOOP KUMAR V., COMMERCIAL MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH JERARD SAMSON RODRIGUES, ADV. SRI.ROVIN RODRIGUES. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.1, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM AT EDAPPALLY, KOCHI 682 024. 2. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.1, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM AT EDAPPALLY, KOCHI- 682 024. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI- 682 015. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 16933 of 2011(N) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE INVOICE NO.KDH/KEL/INV/3909 DATED 29/11/2010. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE INVOICE NO.KDH/KEL/INV/3952 DATED 30/11/2010. EXTP3: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.OR-1/638/2010-11 DATED 10/12/2010. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE BG NO.7024810BG0000124 DATED 30/12/2010. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE SECURITY BOND IN FORM NO.6 DATED 22/12/2010. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 10/02/2011. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED 10/02/2011. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), EKM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 16933 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P6 order imposing penalty under section 47(6) of the KVAT Act, the petitioner had preferred statutory appeal before the 3rd respondent as evidenced from Ext.P8. Contention of the petitioner is that, at the time when the goods under detention was released, the petitioner had furnished Bank Guarantee to the tune of 50% of the security deposit demanded and also furnished security bond for the balance amount, in compliance with the directions issued by this court in a writ petition filed challenging the detention. It is contended that the Bank Guarantee is still in force and therefore the amount of penalty imposed remains secured. Under such circumstances, the petitioner seeks direction for an early disposal of the appeal and till then to restrain the recovery steps. 2. Since the matter is in seizin of the appellate authority, I am of the view that interest of justice will be served if a direction is issued to the appellate authority for an early WP(C) .16933/2011 2 disposal of the appeal. Considering the fact that the petitioner had already furnished Bank Guarantee to the tune of 50% of the penalty imposed, I am of the view that realisation of the balance amount shall be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 appeal after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment . 4. Till such time the appeal is disposed of by the 3rd respondent as directed above, recovery of amounts covered under Ext.P6 order and Ext.P7 demand notice shall be kept in abeyance, provided the petitioner keeps Ext.P4 Bank Guarantee renewed till then and on furnishing security bond for the balance 50% in the form prescribed under the KVAT Rules, without sureties, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment . C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .16933/2011 3