IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30345 of 2010(P)
1. SHAJAN ABRAHAM, PROPRIETOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER(ASSMT.),
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)
For Petitioner :SMT.S.K.DEVI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :06/10/2010
O R D E R
C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
W.P.(C) No. 30345 of 2010
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
Dated this the 6th day of October, 2010
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of assessment finalized
under section 25 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, the
petitioner had approached the 2nd respondent appellate
authority, by filing Ext.P2 appeal. Along with the appeal,
the petitioner preferred Ext.P3 stay petition. It is submitted
that Ext.P2 appeal as well as Ext.P3 stay petition is pending
consideration and disposal before the 2nd respondent. The
petitioner has approached this Court, aggrieved by the
coercive steps of recovery initiated against him, without
considering pendency of the appeal and the stay petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner specifically
pointed that the impugned order of assessment is issued
without complying with the mandatory requirements under
section 25(1) and it is issued in violation of the principles of
natural justice. It is specifically pointed out that a composite
W.P.(C) No. 30345/2010 2
notice calling for objection as well as affording an
opportunity of hearing was issued, and after filing a detailed
objection, the assessment was finalized without affording an
opportunity of personal hearing. Relying on a decision of
this Court in Suzion Infrastructure Services Ltd. V. CTO
(2010 (3) KHC 299), the petitioner contended that under
such circumstances the assessment order itself is
unsustainable in the eye of law.
3. Since the matter is now pending consideration
before the statutory appellate authority, I am of the opinion
that the writ petition can be disposed of on issuing
necessary directions to that authority to expedite the
disposal.
4. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the 2nd
respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on
Ext.P2 appeal, after affording an opportunity of personal
hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest possible, at any rate
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment. Till such time the appeal is disposed
W.P.(C) No. 30345/2010 3
of steps for realization of amounts covered under Ext.P1
shall be kept in abeyance.
5. The writ petition is disposed of with the above
directions. The petitioner will produce a copy of this
judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance.
C. K. ABDUL REHIM,
JUDGE.
mn.