IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22022 of 2010(C)
1. P.O.JOSE, PROPRIETOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS),
3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :15/07/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 22022 of 2010 C
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The goods transported by the petitioner were
intercepted on the way, doubting evasion of tax and demanding
security deposit, leading to issuance of notice under Section 47(2)
of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. Subsequently, on finalisation
of the adjudication proceedings, the amount satisfied by the
petitioner by way of security deposit was converted as penalty as
per Ext.P1 order, which has been challenged by filing Ext.P2
appeal before the second respondent. In the meanwhile, the
assessment was also finalised by the first respondent as per
Ext.P3 order dated 24-02-2010, which is under challenge in Ext.P4
appeal filed before the second respondent, along with Ext.P5
petition for stay. The grievance of the petitioner is that, with any
regard to the pendancy of the above proceedings, Ext.P6 Revenue
Recovery notice has been issued by the third respondent, which is
under challenge in this writ petition.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
3. Considering the fact that the penalty involved has
WPC.22022/2010
: 2 :
already been satisfied by the petitioner, when the security deposit
has been converted as penalty vide Ext.P1, there will be a
direction to the second respondent to consider and finalise Ext.P2
appeal in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at
any rate, within a period of ‘two months’ from the date of receipt of
a copy of this judgment.
4. The second respondent is also directed to consider
and pass final orders on Ext.P5 petition for stay in accordance with
law at the earliest, at any rate, within ‘one month’ from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such orders are passed on
Ext.P5, all further steps pursuant to Ext.P6 shall be kept in
abeyance.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
(P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE)
aks