IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 28170 of 2010(U)
1. EMERSON PROCESS MANAGEMENT INDIA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STRATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL
3. THE SALE TAX OFFICER(ENQUIRY),
4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS),
For Petitioner :SMT.K.LATHA
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :13/09/2010
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.28170 of 2010
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of September, 2010
J U D G M E N T
———————-
Aggrieved by Ext.P4 order imposing penalty
under Section 47 (6) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act,
2003 (KVAT Act) the petitioner had filed appeal before the
4th respondent as per Ext.P5. Earlier, when the transport
was detained, the petitioner had approached this court. In
Ext.P3 judgment, release of the goods was ordered on
condition of the petitioner furnishing security bond, without
sureties, to the value of amounts demanded as security.
2. In Ext.P3 judgment, this court directed the 3rd
respondent therein, who is the awarder of work in question,
to retain from the contract Bill, an amount equivalent to the
security deposit, till adjudication by the competent authority
under Section 47(5) & (6) is completed. It is submitted that
pursuant to Ext.P3 judgment M/s. Bharat Petroleum
Corporation Limited has already retained an amount of
Rs.74,13,751/- without disbursing the same to the petitioner.
Limited prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the 4th
W.P.(C).28170/10 -2-
respondent Appellate Authority to consider and dispose of Ext.P5
appeal and till then not to realise the amount covered under the
order of penalty.
3. Having considered the fact that M/s.BPCL, Kochi is
retaining the amount of penalty and the petitioner had already
furnished security bond as per the directions contained in Ext.P3
judgment, I am of the opinion that the writ petition can be
disposed of directing the Appellate Authority for an expeditious
disposal of the appeal.
4. In the result, the 4th respondent is directed to consider
and pass orders on Ext.P5 appeal, 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.
5. Till such time orders are passed on the appeal,
realisation of amounts covered under Ext.P4 order shall be kept
in abeyance, provided it is ensured that M/s. BPCL is retaining
custody of an amount of Rs.74,13,751/-, due for payment to the
petitioner.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
okb