IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 6211 of 2010(B)
1. HAJI.K.MUHAMMED BASHEER, PROPRIETOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR),
For Petitioner :SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :25/02/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
-----------------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 6211 of 2010
---------------------------------------
Dated, this the 25th day of February, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner, being aggrieved of Exts.P1 and P2 assessment
orders, approached the statutory/appellate authority by filing appeals,
which led to Ext.P5 common order passed by the first appellate
authority. Being still aggrieved, the petitioner preferred second appeals
before the 2nd respondent, which led to Ext.P7 common order whereby
interference has been declined and the appeals were dismissed.
Subsequent to this, the petitioner has filed Exts.P8 and P9 applications
of rectification of mistake, along with Exts.P10 and P11 petitions for
stay. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent has now
issued Ext.P12 notice demanding a sum of Rs.19,96,117/- with further
interest and collection charges without any regard to the pendency of
the above proceedings before the 2nd respondent Tribunal; which hence
is sought to be intercepted by this Court.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that filing of
Exts.P8 and P9 petitions for rectification has been necessitated,
because of the fact that the 2nd respondent Tribunal did not properly
WP(C) No.6211/2010
2
advert to the specific observations and the dictum contained in 1992 STC
98. It is further stated that, there is a fair chance for getting the mistake
rectified, on passing appropriate orders on Exts.P8 and P9 and this being
the position, it is not proper to proceed with the coercive steps as borne
by Ext.P12.
4. Obviously, the adjudication of the issue has been made and
considered at different levels. However, taking note of the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also after hearing the
learned Government Pleader appearing for the opposite side, this Court
does not propose to go into the merits of the case, but for directing the 2nd
respondent to consider and finalise Exts.P8 and P9 in accordance with
law, subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.10
lakhs within a specified time.
5. In the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner is
directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- within two weeks and the
remaining sum of Rs.5,00,000/- within further two weeks thereafter and
produce the requisite proof before the 2nd respondent. On satisfying the
requirement as above, the 2nd respondent shall consider Exts.P8 and P9
applications for rectification of the mistake and appropriate orders shall be
passed in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three
WP(C) No.6211/2010
3
months after production of proof of deposit as aforesaid. The enforcement
of Ext.P2 shall be subject to the deposit and the final orders to be passed
by the Tribunal as above.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
dnc