IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2010 / 25TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18266 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- GREEN GATE PROJECT (P) LTD., MEPPURATH COMPLEX, N.H.BYE PASS, ALUVA, (REPRESENTED BY MANAGER, SRI.A.A.HARIS). BY ADV. MR. VIJAYAN. K.U. MR. K.N.SREEKUMARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER(WORK CONTRACTS), TAX COMPLEX, MATTANCHERRY. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (AA), O/O.OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MATTANCHERRY AT MINI CIVIL STATION, ALUVA. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 015. 4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERRY. 5. INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER, MATTANCHERRY. 6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695 001. BY SERNIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 18266 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 15th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved of Ext.P12 order passed by the third respondent, whereby the interlocutory application for stay preferred by the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal has been dismissed, however retaining the appeal and posting the same for hearing on 16.7.2010. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, though the petitioner started his business on 22.4.2005, registration could be obtained only in the year 2007, w.e.f 17.3.2007. It is also stated that, the petitioner sought to file returns in respect of the assessment year 2006-2007 and has paid the 'compounding fee' of 2 lakhs, on compounding the offence. With regard to the prior period, the case of the petitioner is that, he has filed a petition to condone the delay as borne by Ext.P6, invoking the power and procedures as specified under Section 20 A of the KVAT Act and to have the matter compounded accordingly. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no final orders have been passed on Ext.P6 pending before the 4th respondent (Deputy Commissioner). It is without any regard to the same, that the I.A for stay preferred by the petitioner has been considered and W.P. (C) No. 18266 of 2010 : 2 : rejected by the 3rd respondent, however without passing final orders in the appeal, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. 4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that, the petitioner does not have any right to compound the transactions prior to obtaining the registration. It is also asserted that the power conferred under Section 8 to remit the tax at the compounded rate is applicable only in the case of registered dealers. Since the petitioner admittedly obtained the registration only on 17.3.2007, there is absolutely no merit or bonafides in the submission that the instances prior to the date of registration are also liable to be compounded. 5. Considering the rival submissions and the pendency of the various proceedings before the concerned respondents, this Court does not find it necessary to decide the question of law involved in this case. There is no serious dispute with regard to the question of facts and as such, the finality can be achieved once the final orders are pronounced by the 3rd respondent in Ext.P10 appeal, hearing of which is stated as scheduled on 16.7.2010. 6. In the above circumstances, the 3rd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P10 appeal and pass final orders in accordance with law, of course after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the W.P. (C) No. 18266 of 2010 : 3 : judgment. The recovery proceedings, if any, stated as being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance till such time, on condition that, the petitioner deposits 1/3rd of the due amount and executes a 'simple bond' for the balance amount within two weeks. The first respondent also is directed to consider Ext.P6 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, of course after hearing the petitioner, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd