Bobby Abraham vs Commissioner on 8 October, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 30833 of 2010(D)


1. BOBBY ABRAHAM, PARAMOUNT ENVIRO
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES,
                       ...       Respondent

2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, FIRST CIRCLE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM

 Dated :08/10/2010

 O R D E R
                    C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
             =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
                  W.P.(C) No. 30833 of 2010
             =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
           Dated this the 8th day of October, 2010

                          JUDGMENT

There exists a dispute as to what should be the rate of

tax payable with respect to the goods manufactured by the

petitioner. It is submitted that, Ext.P1 application filed by

the petitioner seeking clarification from the 1st respondent,

under section 94 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003

(KVAT Act) is pending disposal. Grievance of the petitioner

is that before the 1st respondent could take a decision on the

matter, 2nd respondent is proceeding with steps for

imposing penalty and for completing the assessments,

pursuant to Ext.P2 and P4 series notices. Hence he seeks

direction to the 1st respondent for an early disposal of

Ext.P1 application., and till then to restrain finalization of

the proceeding initiated.

2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

case, I am of the opinion that the writ petition can be

disposed of directing the 1st respondent or the appropriate

W.P.(C) No. 30833/2010 2

authority under section 94, to take a decision on Ext.P1

application.

3. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of

directing the 1st respondent or the appropriate authority

under section 94 of the KVAT Act to consider and pass

orders on Ext.P1 application, 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 orders are passed by the 1st

respondent as directed above, the 2nd respondent is directed

not to finalize the proceedings initiated pursuant to Exts.P2

and P4 series of notices.

C. K. ABDUL REHIM,
JUDGE.

mn.