The petitioner is a registered dealer under the relevant provisions of the KVAT Act. In the course of business, assessment proceedings in respect of 2011-12 was sought to be finalised by issuing Ext.P1 notice under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. It is stated that the proceedings were finalised as per Ext.P3 order dated 31.12.2013, which has been subjected to challenge before the 4th respondent/Asst. Commissioner (Appeals), by way of appeal. After considering the I.A. for stay, Ext.P4 order came to be passed on 09.04.2014 directing the petitioner to satisfy 30% of the disputed amount , so as to avail the benefit of interim stay, during the pendency of appeal. The Time to satisfy the said requirement was subsequently extended on 03.06.2014 vide Ext.P5 order passed by the 4th respondent /Asst. Commissioner(Appeals), which, according to the petitioner, was having validity till 10.06.2014. Inspite of forwarding necessary intimation to the first respondent Bank;
and instead of retaining the requisite 30% and sending it to the authorities of the Tax Department, the entire amount covered by Ext.P3 to an extent of Rs 10,48,010/- was debited from the account of the petitioner and it was forwarded to the concerned authorities , which is per se wrong and illegal in all respects and Hence the writ petition. The prayers are in the following lines:
“1. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to authorize the 1st respondent based on Ext.P13 Reminder to take necessary steps to reimburse the unauthorized debit or in the alternative direct the 3rd and 4th respondents to reimburse 70% of the amount due to the petitioner after charging, the 30% of the sum originally demanded.
2. Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 3rd and 4th respondent to hear the Appeal already filed, thereby giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which is rightfully due to him.”
2. The learned Government Pleader points out that there is no excess collection and only the amount covered by Ext.P3 order plus interest and collection charges have been appropriated . It is also pointed out that the condition imposed by the appellate authority was not satisfied on time.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent/State Bank of Travancore points out that the 5th respondent/Inspecting Assistant Commissioner demanded the Bank to satisfy the amount stated as due as per Exts.P6 and P7 dated 28.05.2014, which were received by the Bank on 30.05.2014. Immediately, the position was let known to the petitioner, upon which the Bank was told that the petitioner was intending to file an appeal . Subsequently, on the very next day, the petitioner withdrew the entire amount but for the amount of Rs.10,48,010/- and said that appropriate proceedings are being pursued. On 02.06.2014 the first respondent/Bank got a telephone call from the 5th respondent/Inspecting Asst. Commissioner for satisfaction of the due amount as demanded. In the said circumstance, a demand draft for the requite amount was drawn on 02.06.2014 and the petitioner was informed as to the course and events. The Bank waited for some more time but the factum of extension of time as per Ext.P5 order was never brought to the notice of the Bank at any point of time. It was in the said circumstance, that the demand draft dated 02.06.2014 was forwarded by the Bank to the 5th respondent on 12.06.2014. It is also made a mention that the petitioner does not have a case that Ext.P5 was communicated to the respondent Bank at any point of time as discernible from Ext.P9 complaint preferred by the petitioner before the RBI with regard to the alleged deficiency/lapse on the part of the first respondent Bank.
4. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the only relief which can be given to the petitioner at this point of time is a direction to have the appeal finalised at the earliest. Since the entire amount covered by Ext.P3 has already been satisfied, there will be a direction to the 4th respondent/Assistant Commissioner (Appeals) to pass final orders on appeal preferred by the petitioner , which forms the subject matter of Exts.P4 and P5, after hearing the petitioner, which shall be done at the earliest, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 4th respondent/Assistant Commissioner(Appeals) for further steps.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk