IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 32725 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- STEEL MAX ROLLING MILLS PVT. LTD., PETRONET ROAD, WISE PARK, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE, PALAKKAD. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.32725 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P1 notice issued under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) proposing to assess escaped turnover with respect to the year 2006-07. The petitioner had already filed objections against the proposal as evidenced from Ext.P2. Contention of the petitioner is that the proposal for assessment of escaped turnover is based on some materials collected by the Intelligence Wing on interceptions of consignments effected by the petitioner. Based on such interceptions the petitioner was imposed with penalty through various orders, which are now pending challenge in appeal before the 2nd respondent. Ext.P3 is one of such appeals filed against imposition of penalty. It is submitted that 4 appeals are pending before the 2nd respondent in this regard. Complaint of the petitioner is that if the assessment as proposed under Ext.P1 is finalised before disposal of the appeals, which are filed against imposition of penalty, that will cause severe prejudice. The petitioner is expecting considerable reliefs in the appeals. Therefore it is contended that W.P.(C)..32725/09-I 2 the assessment proposed under Ext.P1 if finalised before attaining finality in the matter of penalty, that will cause prejudice. 2. Under the above circumstances I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of the appeals filed against the orders imposing penalty, on an early basis, and also directing the 2nd respondent to keep in abeyance finalisation of the assessment pursuant to Ext.P1 notice, till such time. 3. In the result the 2nd respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 and other connected appeals filed by the petitioner against imposition of penalty on an early basis, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at any rate within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 4. The 2nd respondent is directed to keep in abeyance finalisation of the proceedings for assessment initiated pursuant to Ext.P1 notice, till orders are passed by the 2nd respondent on the appeals as directed above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb