The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P1 assessment order under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 in respect of the assessment years 2007-2008. The petitioner admittedly approached the appellate authority challenging the said order by filing statutory appeal and obtained Ext.P2 interim order of stay on 1.10.2014, wherein a condition has been imposed to satisfy 30% of the disputed liability so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during the pendency of the appeal. Admittedly, the petitioner has not satisfied the said condition and approached this Court by filing this writ petition with the following prayers:
“i. To issue a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 order passed by the 1st respondent.
ii. To declare that Section 25B of the Act is ultra vires to the Constitution.”
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while W.P.C. No. 28887 of 2014 -2-
passing Ext.P1 order the assessing authority has not referred to the earlier pre-assessment notice issued to the petitioner on 29.08.2013 and the revised notice issued on 20.09.2013 which have been produced as Exts. P3 and P4 respectively. It is stated that the petitioner had submitted Exts.P5 and P6 replies dated 7.10.2013 which also are not seen referred to in Ext.P1. The petitioner was subsequently issued with a notice dated 30.07.2014, a copy of which has been produced as Ext.P7. But the reply stated as filed on 18.8.2014 in response to the said notice is not produced before this Court, to ascertain whether it is the same reply as submitted by the petitioner vide Ext.P5. The question to be considered is whether there could be parallel proceedings, one before the appellate forum and the another before this Court. Admittedly, the petitioner has availed the statutory remedy by way of appeal by approaching the appellate authority and the same is pending consideration, wherein Ext.P2 interim order has been passed, imposing a condition. The said order, i.e., Ext.P2, has not been subjected to challenge by petitioner in this writ petition.
W.P.C. No. 28887 of 2014 -3-
4. In the said circumstance, this Court does not find it necessary to go into the merits of the case and it is always open for the petitioner to bring all the factual particulars to the notice of the appellate authority and to have the matter considered and finalized in accordance with law. The appellate authority is directed to pass final orders in the appeal as expeditiously as possible. The challenge raised by the petitioner as to the scope of Section 25B is left open to be considered in the due course, if necessary. If the petitioner satisfies the condition imposed by the appellate authority as per Ext.P2 within a further time of 'two weeks', the petitioner will continue to enjoy the benefit of interim stay during pendency of the appeal.
The writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the concerned respondent for further steps.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
kp/-