IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33384 of 2010(W)
1. GOPIKA AGENCIES,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),
3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAGHUNATH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :04/11/2010
O R D E R
C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
W.P.(C) No. 33384 of 2010
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
Dated this the 4th day of November,2010
JUDGMENT
Against Ext.P1 order of assessment completed with
respect to the period from 4/2009 to 2/2010, under the
provisions of the the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003
(KVAT Act), the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal before
the 2nd respondent. Ext.P3 is the stay petition filed along
with the appeal. Grievance of the petitioner is that, without
considering pendency of the appeal and petition for stay,
recovery steps has now been initiated on issuing Ext.P4
notice under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery
Act. Hence this writ petition is filed seeking direction to
restrain the recovery steps till the disposal of the appeal.
2. The sole issue in dispute pertains to rate of tax
applicable with respect to the product dealt with by the
petitioner mainly “Ujala Supreme” and “Ujala Stiff”. It is
W.P.(C) No. 33384/2010 2
brought to my notice that the question is being agitated
before the Honourable Apex Court as well as before this
Court in different cases and the rate of tax applicable to the
product has not been finally settled.
3. Various appeals filed by the manufacturer as well
as different dealers are pending disposal in this regard. It is
also noticed that in many other similar cases this Court had
issued directions to the appellate authorities concerned to
dispose of the matter and the recovery of amount was
stayed subject to condition of payments of 1/3rd of the tax
amount in dispute. Considering the facts and
circumstances, I am of the opinion that identical relief can
be granted in this writ petition also.
4. In the above circumstances the writ petition is
disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and
pass orders on Ext.P2 appeal, after affording an opportunity
of personal haring to the petitioner, as early as possible, at
any rate within period of three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
W.P.(C) No. 33384/2010 3
5. Till such time orders are passed by the 2nd
respondent as directed above, recovery of amounts covered
under Ext.P1 order, which is now initiated pursuant to
Ext.P4 notice, shall be kept in abeyance on condition of the
petitioner remitting 1/3rd of the tax amount in dispute and
on furnishing a security bond for the balance amount,
within a period of three weeks from today.
C. K. ABDUL REHIM,
JUDGE.
mn.