High Court Kerala High Court

T.P.Poulose vs The Commercial Tax Officer I on 8 November, 2010

Kerala High Court
T.P.Poulose vs The Commercial Tax Officer I on 8 November, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 32558 of 2010(T)


1. T.P.POULOSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER I,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER,

3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM

 Dated :08/11/2010

 O R D E R
                     C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
             =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
                  W.P.(C) No. 32558 of 2010
             =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
          Dated this the 8th day of November, 2010

                           JUDGMENT

Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 notice issued under

section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Assessment for the year 2007-’08 was proposed to be

finalized on rejecting the return filed, on the ground that

the Intelligence Squad imposed penalty to the tune of

Rs.32,500/- based on interception of a transport effected by

the petitioner.

2. Contention of the petitioner is that, against the

order imposing penalty (Ext.P6), the petitioner had already

approached the appellate authority (the 3rd respondent) by

filing Ext.P7 appeal and the said appeal is pending

consideration and disposal. Hence the petitioner is seeking

direction to restrain the assessing authority (1st respondent)

to keep in abeyance finalization of the assessment pursuant

to Ext.P3 notice, till disposal of the appeal.

W.P.(C) No. 32558/2010 2

3. Heard, learned Government Pleader appearing for

the respondents. It is submitted that subsequent to Ext.P3

notice, the 1st respondent had finalized the order of

assessment, since the petitioner had failed to submit any

objections/reply. However, it is conceded that the

proceedings in this regard has not been despatched, in view

of an interim order passed by this Court on 26-10-2010.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of

the view that interest of justice will be served if the 3rd

respondent is directed to have an expeditious disposal of

Ext.P7 appeal and the 1st respondent is directed to keep in

abeyance completion of the assessment till the disposal of

the appeal.

5. Hence the writ petition is disposed of directing the

3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7

appeal, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period

of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

W.P.(C) No. 32558/2010 3

6. The 1st respondent is directed to keep in abeyance

finalization of the assessment pursuant to Ext.P3 notice, till

such time orders are passed by the 3rd respondent on Ext.P7

appeal. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be provided

with an opportunity to file objection and an opportunity of

personal hearing before completing the assessment.

C. K. ABDUL REHIM,
JUDGE.

mn.