IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2010 / 19TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29667 of 2010(G) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- NIRAPPUKATTIL TIMBERS, CHEMBUMUKKU, KAKKANAD, REP. BY SABU JOSEPH-MANAGING PARTNER, NIRAPPUKATTIL HOUSE, CHEMBUMUKKU, KAKKANADU, KOCHI-682 030. BY ADVS. SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH SRI.SAJI KURIACHAN SRI.K.S.ROCKEY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KVAT CIRCLE-I, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------ WP(C) NO. 29667 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a registered dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act borne on the files of the respondent. With respect to the year 2001-02, the assessment finalised earlier was modified through Ext.P1 order of the appellate tribunal. Ext.P4 is the modified order of assessment issued on the basis of Ext.P1. It is mentioned in Ext.P4 that the dealer had failed to establish his claim regarding discrepancies in the opening stock and therefore he is not entitled for any deduction on the tax paid on the sale of timber during the previous years. 2. Meanwhile, the amount of tax in arrears with respect to various years was allowed to be settled under the Amnesty scheme, as per Ext.P2. The petitioner had not complied with the payments as stipulated in Ext.P2. 2 WP(C) No. 29667/2010 According to the petitioner the benefit under Ext.P2 was not availed only because of pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard petitioner had filed WP(C) 4380/2010 in which a direction was issued to consider the application under the Amnesty Scheme and to issue orders. It was made clear that the recovery will be subject to decision which will be taken on the petition seeking settlement under the Amnesty scheme. On the basis of directions contained in Ext.P5, the Ext.P6 order was issued. It is the contention of the petitioner that the amount stipulated in Ext.P6 is not correct since tax paid during the previous years was not given credit to. Therefore the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 application before the first respondent seeking rectification of the order issued under Ext.P6. 3. Heard learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent. It is disputed that any amount is due for credit with respect to the previous years. It is 3 WP(C) No. 29667/2010 pointed out that such a claim was declined by virtue of Ext.P4 order. However it is submitted that Ext.P7 application will be considered by the authority concerned and appropriate decision will be taken thereof. 4. Under the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest 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 orders are passed by the respondent, the recovery of amounts due under Ext.P4 shall be kept in abeyance. 6. It is made clear that in view of the direction issued as above, time for payment stipulated in Ext.P6 shall be rescheduled by the first respondent. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc