The petitioner is a co-operative society formed by the Government of Kerala and engaged in the manufacture and sale of rubberised coir mattresses and such other items. In the course of business transaction, they claimed input tax credit in respect of the purchase made by them from the 4th respondent. But the claim was rejected for the reason that the registration of the 4th respondent was not renewed at the relevant time and that the input tax credit could be given only on such purchases, which have been effected by a registered dealer from another registered dealer. Accordingly, the assessment was finalized as per Exts. P1 to P4 orders. The petitioner has sought to challenge the same by filing Exts. P6 to P9 appeals along with Exts. P10 to P13 petitions for stay. After considering I.A. for stay in respect of Ext. P3 assessment order, the appellate authority passed Ext. P14 conditional order, directing the petitioner to satisfy 40 % of the liability, so as to avail interim stay during pendency of appeal. This in turn is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. It is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, stay petitions in respect of other assessment orders i.e. Exts. P1, P2 and P4 order, are still to be considered. It is also pointed that there is absolutely no rhyme or reason to have denied the benefit of input tax credit to the petitioner. The learned counsel further pointed out that all the requisite documents have now been produced before the concerned authority and that the registration of the 4th respondent has been renewed. It is also brought to the notice of this that the tax liability to an extent of more than Rs. 3 crores has been liquidated by the 4th respondent.
4. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that a further sum about 9 lakhs is still to be cleared by the 4th respondent.
5. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that since the substantial extent of liability has been liquidated by the 4th respondent, the appeals preferred by the petitioner could be caused to be considered and disposed of. This is more so, when the second respondent has passed Ext. P14 interim order only in respect of Ext. P3 assessment order and the appeals and stay petitions preferred against Exts. P1, P2 and P4 assessment order are still pending. In the above circumstances, there will be a direction to the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts. P6 to P9 appeals in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. The coercive proceedings, if any, shall be kept in abeyance till such time.
Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with copy of the writ petition before the second respondent for further steps.
The Writ Petition is disposed of.
kmd Sd/-
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)