Marshal Varghese vs. Commercial Tax Officer

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Exts.P12 and P13 first appellate orders passed against him under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. Although various contentions are raised in the writ petition in its challenge against Exts.P12 and P13 orders, I am of the view that against Exts.P12 and P13 appellate orders, the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by way of a second appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. I also do not find Exts.P12 and P13 appellate orders to be vitiated by any juri ictional error or violation of the rules of natural justice so as to warrant an interference with the same in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also relevant to point out that the appellate orders were passed as early as on 04.03.2017 (although the petitioner states that he received the orders only in 2019). I also note that against Ext.P13 appellate order the petitioner had also filed a rectification application, which was also considered by the appellate authority and rectified orders passed. The said fact would indicate that the petitioner was aware of the appellate orders in 2019 itself and yet he has chosen to come to this Court challenging the orders through the present Writ Petition only in September 2020. The said facts constitute a further reason as to why the Writ Petition need not be entertained at this stage. Resultantly, I dismiss the Writ Petition in its challenge against Exts.P12 and P13 appellate orders leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the appellate Tribunal in its challenge against the said orders. Taking note of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he would require some time to prefer appeals before the appellate Tribunal, I direct that recovery steps for recovery of the amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Exts.P12 and P13 orders shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month so as to enable the petitioner to prefer a statutory appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, in the meanwhile. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE mns/17.9.2020 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO 32150822545 DATED 30.8.2013 FOR 2009-10 ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO 32150822545 DATED 30.8.2013 FOR 2010-11 ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO 32150822545 DATED 23.1.2014 FOR 2011-12 ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO 32150822545 DATED 10.2.2014 FOR 2012-13 ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPIES OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM ALONG WITH APPLICATIONS FOR DELAY AND STAY AGAINST EXT P1 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 2.1.2014 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPIES OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM ALONG WITH APPLICATIONS FOR DELAY AND STAY AGAINST EXT P2 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 2.1.2014 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPIES OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM ALONG WITH APPLICATIONS FOR DELAY AND STAY AGAINST EXT P3 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 26.3.2014 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPIES OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM ALONG WITH APPLICATIONS FOR DELAY AND STAY AGAINST EXT P4 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 26.3.2014 EXHIBIT P9OF THE DEMAND NOTICE BEARING NO D- 216/2013-14 DATED 15.11.2013 FOR 2009-10 & 2010-11 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P10OF THE DEMAND NOTICE IN FORM 1 BEARING NO R1-1464/14/ST DATED 6.8.2014 FOR 2011-12 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P11OF THE DEMAND NOTICE IN FORM 1 BEARING NO R1-1467/14/ST DATED 6.8.2014 FOR 2012-13 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P12OF THE COMMON APPELLATE ORDER NO KVATA 37/14& 38/14 DATED 4.3.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P13OF THE COMMON APPELLATE ORDER NO KVATA NO 963/2014 & 964/2014 DATED 14.3.2017 ALONG WITH RECTIFICATION ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL //// P.A TO JUDGE